/u>Ho 


r 


O  ■  ^  <»V’‘ 


f 


LETTER 


%■ 


TO  A  FRIEND,  IN  REPLY  TO 


A  EECENT  PAMPHLET, 


FROM 


THE  MISSIONARIES  OF  THE  AMERICAN  BOARD  OF 
COMMISSIONERS  FOR  FOREIGN  MISSIONS, 

AT  CONSTANTINOPLE. 


BY  THE  RIGHT  REVEREND  HORATIO  SOUTHGATE. 


NEW-YORK  ; 

D.  APPLETON  &  CO.  200  BROADWAA". 

PHILADELPHIA ; 

GEORGE  S.  APPLETON. 


MDCCCXLV. 


V  "a — ' 


‘•..V  ^i,- 

v  ■  .  I 

'  ■^' '  1*  •'“  „■ 


rt 


»  '  *  /  ■ 

,4. 


4^' 

t 


A;- 


.V®f 

1?7^* 


■§‘ 


} 

4' 

-.  vi'  '"4  ■’ 


-  -^  ’  't 

I 


PREFATOEY  REMARKS. 


In  the  Introduction  to  the  pamphlet  to  which  the  following  let¬ 
ter  is  a  reply,  it  is  stated  that  the  first  occasion  of  the  controversy 
was  a  remark  in  the  Annual  Report  of  the  American  Board  of  Com¬ 
missioners  for  Foreign  Missions,  in  1843, — which  remark  was  to  the 
effect,  that  the  Mission  of  that  Board  at  Constantinople  had  been 
embarrassed  by  the  interference  of  individuals  who  had  imbibed 
errors  which  now  threaten  the  peace  and  unity  of  the  Episcopal 
Churches  of  England  and  America.”  Dr.  Anderson,  the  Secretary, 
was  called  upon  for  information  upon  this  point,  and  referred  to  me 
as  the  principal  one  of  the  individuals  alluded  to.  Now,  it  may  be 
asked,  whence  Dr.  Anderson  had  his  information  with  regard  to  my 
theological  views  ;  and  it  must  be  answered — from  the  missionaries  at 
Constantinople.  And  if  it  is  farther  asked — whence  had  they  any 
knowledge  on  the  subject,  I  unhesitatingly  answer — ^  they  depended 
upon  their  imagination  for  their  facts.’  The  whole  story  is  one 
used,  if  not  devised,  for  no  other  purpose  than  to  give  edge  and 
effect  to  their  criminations.  Charges  of  interference  appear  more 
plausible  if  sustained  by  the  antecedent  fact  that  the  person  alluded 
to  is  in  a  state  of  mind  from  which  such  interference  might  be  expect¬ 
ed.  This  is  the  whole  reason  for  the  assault  in  the  Annual  Report. 
Individuals  who  had  imbibed  such  errors,  would  be  likely  to  exert 
such  an  influence  ;  and  if  the  influence  can  be  attributed  to  the  er¬ 
rors,  the  missionaries  of  the  Board  are  more  sure  to  escape  uncen¬ 
sured.  But  if  the  errors  do  not  exist,  what  becomes  of  the  inference  ? 
And  that  they  do  not  exist — that  the  position  which  I  have  uni- 


4 


« 


formly  assumed  among  all  who  know  my  views,  utterly  precludes 
the  supposition  of  their  existence,  is  a  most  certain  truth.  Yet  it  is 
one  which  I  do  not  feel  called  upon  to  discuss  here.  This  is  not  a 
theological  essay.  I  have,  therefore,  forborne  to  speak  of  such  mat¬ 
ters,  farther  than  to  set  aside  certain  items  in  the  missionaries’ 
pamphlet,  which  might  be  supposed  to  have  reference  to  them. 
And  I  will  here  say,  that  it  appears  to  me  one  of  the  most  excep¬ 
tionable  things  in  the  whole  course  of  their  proceedings,  that  they 
have  endeavored  to  put  the  questions  between  us  on  a  false  issue, 
and  to  make  the  force  of  their  testimony  greater  by  resorting  to 
the  unworthy  expedient  of  imputing  to  me  errors  of  belief,  without 
the  faintest  shadow  of  evidence,  nay,  contrary  to  every  certain  indi¬ 
cation  of  truth. 

H.  S, 


I 


LETTER. 


My  dear  Friend: — 

You  think  it  incumbent  on  me  to  answer  the  pamphlet  which  ha§ 
lately  appeared  from  the  missionaries  of  the  American  Board  at  Con¬ 
stantinople,  entitled,  “  a  Letter  in  Reply  to  Charges  by  Rev.  Horalio 
Southgate.”  You  believe  that  an  answer,  such  as  you  think  the  case 
admits  of,  will  be  sufficient  to  settle,  at  least  in  every  candid  man’s 
mind,  the  questions  that  have  arisen  between  us.  I  address  myself, 
therefore,  to  the  task,  and  while  I  mean  to  speak  with  the  utmost 
plainness,  I  hope  to  speak  with  perfect  charity  and  kindness.  I  would 
not  indulge  in  a  single  harsh  expression,  nor  entertain  a  single  vindic¬ 
tive  feeling.  I  have  no  taste  for  controversy  in  any  shape,  and  my 
deepest  principles  and  convictions  are  averse  to  the  uncharitable  and 
•  denunciatory  language  which  marks  so  much  of  modern  controversial 
writings.  Towards  these  brethren  I  entertain  no  feelings  but  those 
of  kindness  and  love.  Would  that  we  could  see  eye  to  eye  in  those 
things  which  concern  the  Redeemer’s  kingdom!  Would  that  peace 
and  harmony  could  ever  have  prevailed  among  us,  and  no  differences 
but  those  of  a  generous  emulation  in  well-doing,  ever  have  arisen ! 

But  to  my  work.  I  mean  to  show  that  unhappy  as  these  differ¬ 
ences  are,  considered  in  themselves,  unhappy  as  are  all  differences 
between  Christian  men,  when  so  considered,  yet  in  the  present  in¬ 
stance  we  have  nothing  to  blame  ourselves  for  in  our  own  Church, 
and  may  rightly  claim  to  possess  a  conscience  void  of  offence  toward 
God  and  toward  man. 

The  missionaries  allude  to  my  former  intercourse  with  them  during 
my  first  visit  to  Turkey,  in  the  years  1836-38,  and  contrast  it  with 
what  it  has  been  during  my  second  sojourn  of  the  last  four  years.  I 
went  to  Turkey  in  ’36  and  returned  in  ’38.  I  went  again  in  1840, 
and  remained  till  May  1844.  These  are  the  two  periods  which  are 
contrasted.  Now  I  cheerfully  add  my  testimony  to  theirs,  as  to  the 
friendly  nature  of  our  intercourse  during  the  first  of  these  periods. 
It  is  not  in  my  nature  to  forget  it,  nor  do  my  feelings  incline  me  to 
do  so.  It  was  indeed  very  pleasant — a  cordial  to  my  spirit  in  aweary 
land.  But  the  matter  is  a  little  overstated  in  their  pamphlet.  They 
say  (p.  6)  that  I  “  sat  down  to  the  communion  table  with  them,  re¬ 
ceiving  the  sacrament  from  their  hands,  and  also  taking  part  with 


G 


them  in  the  administration  of  it.’’  This  is  incorrect.  Never  so  much 
as  once  did  1  receive  the  Sacrament  of  Holy  Communion  from  the 
inissionaries  at  Constantinople;  never  so  much  as  once  take  any  part 
with  them  in  the  administration  of  it.  They  may,  perhaps,  refer  to  a 
single  instance  in  which  I  did  receive  it,  from  other  Congregational 
missionaries,  in  another  place.  If  so,  why  do  they  speak  of  sitting 
down*  “  with  W5,”  “  receiving  from  our  hands,”  and  “  taking  part 
with  us  ?”  Those  who  write  are  the  missionaries  at  Constantinople, 
and  they  say  expressly,  in  two  different  places  in  their  pamphlet, 
(pp.  5  and  30,)  that  they  speak  throughout  only  of  what  concerns 
themselves  and  their  station.  But  again,  they  speak  of  this  intercom¬ 
munion  as  if  it  had  been  a  habit  with  me ;  whereas  I  never  but  once 
partook  of  the  Communion  in  connection  with  Congregational  mis¬ 
sionaries  in  Turkey, — and  then,  as  I  have  just  said,  not  at  Constanti¬ 
nople.  It  was  at  Broosa,  in  the  spring  of  1838,  after  I  had  just  re¬ 
turned  from  my  long  tour  in  Persia.  I  had  then  been  two  years  with¬ 
out  the  Sacrament,  and  was  suffering  inexpressibly  from  the  priva¬ 
tion.  I,  therefore,  communed  with  my  brethren  at  Broosa.  But  I 
did  it  at  the  moment  with  considerable  hesitation,  and  regretted  it  as 
soon  as  it  was  done.  I  resolved,  moreover,  never  to  do  it  again. 
Now,  I  have  not  the  slightest  objection  to  acknowledge  that  I  have 
communed  with  the  missionaries  at  Constantinople,  if  1  have  done  so. 
But  the  truth  is,  the  only  intercourse  which  I  ever  had  with  them  on 
the  subject  of  the  Sacrament,  was  in  the  spring  or  summer  of  1838, 
after  my  visit  to  Broosa,  and  after  my  resolution  formed  there.  I  w^as 
one  Sunday  morning,  through  Mr.  Schauffler,  one  of  their  number, 
invited  to  a  similar  participation,  and  declined, — the  invitation  and 
declining  both  being  done,  I  believe,  in  the  kindest  manner. 

Yet  now  they  would  fain  charge  me  with  an  “  entire  metamor¬ 
phosis,”  (p.  8,)  because,  during  the  last  four  years,  I  have  not  done 
that  which  I  never  did.  But  even  supposing  that  I  had  formerly 
communed  with  them,  I  was  then  a  Deacon,  and  could  not  consecrate 
myself ;  whereas,  during  my  last  sojourn,!  was  a  Priest,  and,  therefore, 
under  no  necessity  of  going  to  others.  Moreover,  during  ihe  first 
period,  there  was  no  Church  of  my  own,  where  I  could  receive ;  while, 
during  the  last  period,  there  has  been  an  English  Church,  where  I 
have  regularly  received.  I  say  this,  to  show  how  unjust  is  their 
broad  inference,  even  supposing  their  assertion  of  former  intercom¬ 
munion  to  be  true.  Would  they  have  me  leave  my  own  Church  to  com¬ 
mune  with  them  1 

The  truth,  I  fear,  is,  they  are  too  earnest  in  making  out  a  WTong 
point.  They  wish  to  place  the  present  attitude  of  our  Missions,  on 

’  The  missionaries  object  to  my  use  of  this  term  on  the  ground  that  some  of 
their  number  are  not  Congregationalists,  but  Presbyterians.  I  use  the  term  only 
for  convenience,  and  not  invidiously.  The  major  part  are  Congregationalists, 
and  therefore  I  use  that  term  rather  than  the  other.  Both  would  be  an  encum¬ 
brance. 


the  ground  of  a  change  in  rny  views.  Now,  as  I  said  before  with 
regard  to  communion,  so  1  say  of  all, — I  have  not  the  slightest  objec¬ 
tion  to  acknowledge  a  change  in  my  views  on  any  subject  on  which 
it  has  taken  place.  I  own  myself  capable  of  new  degrees  of  know¬ 
ledge,  and  of  new  knowledge  on  old  subjects,  and  if  there  is  one 
prayer  which  I  breathe,  day  by  day,  with  the  intensest  ardor  of  my 
soul,  it  is  that  I  may  be  “  guided  into  all  truth.”  But  on  the  subject 
of  the  Christian  ministry  and  intercommunion,  my  views  are  substan¬ 
tially  now  what  they  w^ere  in  1838.  True,  I  then  attended  their 
preaching,  and,  as  they  say,  united  with  them  in  private  prayer.  But 
I  did  not  thereby  regard  myself  as  recognizing  their  ministerial  com¬ 
mission.  There  was  no  other  service  which  1  could  attend ;  whereas, 
during  the  last  four  years,  I  have  had  the  service  of  my  own  Church, 
and  been  called,  for  a  considerable  portion  of  the  time,  to  officiate  at 
it.  As  to  private  prayer,  I  told  the  missionaries,  on  my  return  to 
Constantinople  in  1840,  that  I  should  have  no  objection  to  uniting 
with  them  as  formerly,  if  I  were  in  the  same  circumstances.  Then  I 
was  a  passing  stranger ;  now  I  had  come  to  establish  a  Mission  and 
to  be  a  permanent  resident.  I  thought,  therefore,  a  formal  united 
prayer-meeting,  which  they  proposed,  inexpedient.  No  such  custom 
was  known  at  home,  and  it  seemed  to  me  best  to  follow  the  practice 
which  prevailed  there.  I  assured  them  that  my  feelings  towards  them 
were  the  same  as  formerly,  and  that  whenever  I  found  myself  in  one 
of  their  houses  at  the  time  of  prayer,  I  should  be  most  happy  to  unite 
with  them.  Formerly  I  had  attended  their  meetings  for  prayer,  as  a 
msitor ;  now  it  was  proposed  to  have  a  united  prayer-meeting  of  the 
two  missions.  The  two  cases  seemed  to  me  essentially  different.  As 
an  individual,  without  a  Mission  in  the  city,  I  could  informally  attend 
their  meetings;  but  being  now  engaged  in  a  Mission  there,  the  rule, 
it  seemed  to  me,  should  be  that  which  prevailed  at  home.  Now%  all 
this  statement  they  pass  over,  and,  in  the  place  of  it,  say,  that  the 
reason  of  my  not  consenting  to  such  a  prayer-meeting,  on  my  return 
in  1840,  was,  ‘‘lest  it  should  be  supposed  by  others, that  I  recognized 
them  as  true  ministers  of  Christ,  equally  with  myself.”  {Reply,  p.  8.) 
All  this  is  a  pure  invention  of  their  own.  They  (that  is,  those  of  them 
who  were  present  when  I  made  the  statement  above  given,  Messrs, 
(loodell,  Dwight,  and  Hamlin,)  know  that  no  allusion  was  made  to 
any  such  reason.  They  have  framed  it  entirely  out  of  their  own  ima¬ 
ginations. 

I  come  now  to  the  matter  of  concealment.  When  I  was  with  the 
missionaries,  during  my  first  visit,  nothing  was  ever  said  by  them  to 
the  native  Christians  around  us,  of  my  being  of  a  different  communion 
from  themselves,  although  the  most  natural  mode  of  introduction  to  an 
Eastern  Christian,  would  be,  to  say  that  I  belonged  to  a  Church  gov¬ 
erned  by  Bishops.  But  so  carefully  was  allusion  to  this  subject  avoid¬ 
ed,  that  even  an  Armenian  associated  in  their  labors,  and  living  in  one 
of  their  houses,  was  never  informed  of  the  fact,  and  never  so  much  as 


8 


heard  that  there  was  a  Church  in  this  country  constituted  like  his  own, 
until  he  himself  tame  hither  and  discovered  it.  In  my  occasional  in¬ 
terviews  with  this  individual  in  Constantinople,  I  took  it  for  granted 
that  he  had  learned  from  the  missionaries  who  I  was,  and  never 
thought  that  he  needed  any  information  upon  the  subject.  In  all  my 
conversations  with  him,  I  spoke  as  a  clergyman  of  my  Church  might 
be  expected  to  speak,  of  the  Eastern  ministry  and  Church  institu¬ 
tions  ;  but  when  I  afterwards  met  him  in  this  country,  in  1839,  he  in¬ 
formed  me  that  he  had  lately  learned  of  the  distinctive  existence  of 
ray  Church,  which  he  had  never  known  before.  When  I  expressed 
my  surprise  at  his  not  having  recognized  me  at  Constantinople,  and 
alluded  to  my  having  repeatedly  performed  service  when  he  was  pres¬ 
ent,  and  to  my  having,  on  such  occasions,  used  a  clerical  dress  and 
Prayer  Book,  he  replied  that  the  missionaries  sometimes  did  the  same 
thing,  and,  therefore,  he  saw  in  this  no  difference  between  us.  This 
is  one  instance  in  which  the  use  of  the  gown  and  Prayer  Book  has 
tended  to  conceal  the  real  character  of  the  missionaries  from  the  know¬ 
ledge  of  Armenians,  and  even  of  men  most  intimate  with  them.  Of 
the  motive  for  this  use,  I  do  not  now  speak.  I  have  not  said,  nor  do 
I  now  say,  that  they  have  adopted  it  for  the  purpose  of  appearing  to 
be  members  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  of  this  country.  In 
my  former  pamphlet,  (styled  unfortunately  by  the  friend  who  super¬ 
vised  the  publication,  a  “  Vindication,” — as  if  it  were  the  defence  of 
a  man  on  trial,)  I  simply  stated  the fact  of  the  use  and  the  effect  of  it, 
without  at  all  alluding  to  motives.  Of  them,  I  shall  have  occasion  to 
speak  hereafter. 

From  Constantinople,  I  went  to  Persia  in  the  summer  of  1837, 
and  here  again  I  met  wuth  missionaries  of  the  American  Board  at 
Oormiah.  I  spent  a  w^eek  with  them  in  their  houses,  and  every  atten¬ 
tion  that  kindness  or  hospitality  could  prompt,  was  shown  to  me. 
Here  I  was  struck  with  the  fact  that  nothing  was  said  of  my  owm 
Church  character  to  the  Nestorian  ecclesiastics  around  me,  one  of 
whom  was  Mar  Yohanna,  since  well  knowm  in  this  country.  I  at¬ 
tributed  this,  however,  to  a  reluctance  to  declare  the  existence  of  an 
Episcopal  Church  in  the  United  States,  lest  it  might  operate  disadvan- 
tageously  to  the  Mission ; — and  a  feeling  of  delicacy,  natural  to  a 
guest,  prevented  me  from  alluding  to  the  subject.  I  was,  however, 
well  pleased  with  what  I  saw  there,  for  the  Mission  was  eminently 
conservative,  though  entirely  Congregational,  and  the  missionaries, 
using  no  extraneous  devices,  were  knowm  for  what  they  really  were. 
If  it  has  become  less  conservative  of  late,  as  the  reports  w^hich  have 
reached  this  country  would  lead  us  to  believe,  I  deeply  regret  it.  May 
it  not  arise  from  the  extreme  improbability  of  Congregationalists’  act¬ 
ing  long  among  the  Eastern  Churches,  without  exerting  an  influence 
tending  to  their  subversion,  and  this  even  wUen  they  have  begun  with 
earnest  professions  of  desiring  no  such  issue,  and  are  continuing  to  put 
forth  the  same  professions  before  the  Eastern  Christians? 


9 


But  to  proceed.  The  missionaries  achnowledge  their  use  of  the 
gown,  Prayer  Book,  and  the  sign  of  the  Cross ;  for  their  mode  of  state¬ 
ment  respecting  the  latter,  (“  and  if  the  sign  of  the  cross  has  been 
made  according  to  this  [the  English]  form,  it  has  been  rarely  done,” 
&c..  Reply,  p.  15,)  will  be  regarded  as  an  acknowledgment  of  the  use 
of  it.*  They  say,  however,  that  the  gown  has  been  used  at  burials 
because  ‘  the  people  of  the  country  suppose  no  clergyman  to  be  present 
when  no  clerical  dress  is  seen,’  (p.  15.)  Now,  this  is  what  I  have  my¬ 
self  asserted.  The  missionaries  feel  the  necessity  of  appearing  to 
have  the  external  badges  of  a  clerical  character,  because  such  badges 
are  in  the  East  uniformly  associated  with  the  character.  The  people 
of  that  country  have  never  been  accustomed  to  see  clergymen  without 
them.  What  I  meant  to  say  in  my  pamphlet,  of  the  use  of  these 
signs  by  the  missionaries,  was,  not  that  they  wish  to  appear  to  be  cler¬ 
gymen  of  OUT  Church  distinctively,  for  our  Church  is  not  in  general 
distinctively  known,  but  that  they  wish  to  appear  as  possessing  the 
primd  facie  marks  of  a  clerical  character,  as  they  are  understood  in  the 
East.  Now  when  an  Eastern  Christian  draws  the  inference  that  a 
man  is  a  clergyman  because  he  is  wearing  a  clerical  dress,  what  does 
this  inference  amount  to  ?  Why,  that  he  is  an  Episcopal  clergyman, — 
a  clergyman  of  an  Episcopal  Church, — for  they  know  of  no  other 
kind  of  clergymen  or  Churches.  They  infer,  from  a  clerical  dress,  a 
clerical  character  as  they  understand  it.  Thus,  I  say,  the  use  of  such 
a  dress  by  the  missionaries  tends  to  deceive,  because  they  do  not  pos¬ 
sess  the  clerical  character  inferred  from  it.  They  are  not  ordained  by 
Bishops  ;  they  are  not  clergymen  of  an  Episcopal  Church.  If  they 
are  willing  to  be  known  as  Congregationalists  or  Presbyterians,  they 
ought  not  to  appear  in  a  manner  which  w  ill  make  a  contrary  infer¬ 
ence  certain.  Being  without  Episcopal  ordination,  they  ought  not  to 
assume  a  garb  and  Prayer  Book  w’hich  imply,  in  the  eyes  of  Eastern 
people,  such  an  ordination.  Appearing  as  they  w^ould  in  this  country, 
they  wdll  certainly  be  known  as  not  Episcopalians;  and  if,  in  conse¬ 
quence  of  this,  their  clerical  character  is  questioned,  they  can  defend 
it  as  it  is. 

But  they  say,  they  have  not  used  such  badges  in  their  private 
meetings  for  the  Armenians.  I  believe  it,  and  so  stated  in  my  pam¬ 
phlet,  (p.  26.)  The  use  of  them  there  w^ould  make  those  meetings 
to  appear  to  be  of  a  formal,  ecclesiastical  character,  which  the  mis¬ 
sionaries  most  wish  to  avoid,  as  it  would  at  once  create  the  impression 
that  they  designed  to  form  a  sect.  Those  meetings  are  already  sus¬ 
pected,  and  the  adoption  of  clerical  badges  in  them  would  much 

*  When  my  former  pamphlet  was  brought  to  the  notice  of  the  American 
Board,  at  their  late  meeting  at  Worcester,  the  Rev.  Dr.  Anderson  declared  it, 
“so  far  as  affecting  the  missionaries  or  the  Board  unfavorably,  to  be  untrue 
THROUGHOUT.”  Now,  the  most  obnoxious  part  of  all,  and  that  which  most  unfa¬ 
vorably  affected  the  missionaries,  was  this  use  of  the  dress.  Prayer  Book,  and 
sign  of  the  cross, — which  they  now  acknowledge.  What,  then,  becomes  of  Dr 
Anderson’s  charge  of  falsehood  ?  Does  it  not  turn  upon  himself? 


10 


increase  the  suspicion.  But  when  such  badges  are  used  abroad, 
before  the  world,  where  not  the  twenty  or  thirty  or  fifty  Armenians, 
gathered  in  a  private  house,  can  alone  see  them,  but  the  whole 
Christian  community  of  Constantinople,  the  impression  referred  to  is 
conveyed  to  a  much  greater  extent  than  if  they  were  used  in  a  pri¬ 
vate  meeting.  For  example,  when  at  the  burial  of  our  late  Minister, 
Commodore  Porter,  Messrs.  Goodell  and  Dwight  appeared  in  gowns 
and  bands,  and  one  or  both  carrying  Prayer  Books,  was  not  the  im¬ 
pression  conveyed  to  the  two  or  three  hundred  Eastern  Christians 
present,  something  more  decided,  more  extensive  and  more  influential 
in  its  character,  than  if  the  same  had  been  done  in  an  assembly  of  a 
few  intimate  friends  within  doors  ?  I  do  not,  therefore,  see  the  force 
of  the  argument  which  the  missionaries  would  draw  from  the  fact 
that  they  do  not  use  these  badges  in  their  Armenian  meeting.  The 
impression  alluded  to,  is  more  distinctly  and  strongly  conveyed  by 
using  them  elsewhere.  And  let  me  say  that  it  makes  no  difference 
whether  the  gown  be  Lutheran  or  Episcopal,  or  the  Prayer  Book  be 
used  as  it  is,  or  in  a  garbled  manner.^  It  is  the  badge  which  is  sig¬ 
nificant,  and  not  the  particular  cut  or  use  of  it.  It  is  the  using  of  what 
will  at  once  be  recognized  as  a  clerical  dress  and  Church  Book,  which 
produces  a  false  impression ;  the  impression,  namely,  that  they  are  cler¬ 
gymen  in  the  Oriental  sense  of  the  term,  that  is.  Episcopal  clergymen. 
I  suppose,  however,  that  the  two  gowns  worn  on  the  occasion  just 
alluded  to,  were  not  both  of  them  the  one  ‘  Lutheran  gown  belonging 
to  the  Mission.’  What  reason  was  there  for  w’earing  either,  or  using 
the'Prayer  Book?  The  missionaries  say  (p.  16)  that  it  has  “  always” 
been  used  “  in  a  spirit  of  accommodation  to  the  feelings  of  their 
English  Episcopal  friends.”  But  in  this  instance  the  person  deceased 
was  an  American^  and  of  a  Presbyterian  family,  and  so,  I  believe, 
were  all  the  relatives  present.  The  reason  evidently  was  to  produce 
a  certain  impression, — the  impression  before  alluded  to.  It  could  not 
have  been  desired  by  the  family,  for  though  the  Prayer  Book  was 
there,  and  apparently  used,  it  was  not  the  Episcopal  service,  but  a 
certain  garbling  of  it  which  essentially  destroyed  the  solemnity  of  the 
occasion.^  First,  on  coming  to  the  grave,  were  read  the  impressive 
words,  “Man  that  is  born  of  a  woman,”  &c.,  and  then,  us  if  in  the 

service,  the  extemporaneous  remark,  “  It  is  calculated  that  - 

thousand  die  every  day,  and  - thousand  every  hour.”  ^  Then 

followed  the  next  sentence,  then  another  extemporaneous  remark,  and 
so  on.  The  succeeding  paragraph,  on  committing  the  body  to  the 
earth,  was  read  with  essential  alterations ;  the  Lord’s  Prayer  was 

*'  The  missionaries  say  that,  among  other  denominations,  the  Lutheran  is 
represented  in  their  Missions.  I  know  of  no  Lutheran  among  them.  Mr.  Schaufl- 
ler,  the  only  one,  I  believe,  originally  a  Lutheran,  is  a  minister  by  Congregational 
ordination,  and,  therefore,  I  take  it,  a  Congregational  minister. 

^  Besides,  if  it  had  been  desired,  there  was  an  Episcopal  clergyman  there 
ready  to  perform  it. 

^  I  have  forgotten  the  exact  number  mentioned. 


11 


omitted  ;  and  in  place  of  the  last  Collects,  an  extemporaneous  prayer, 
with  the  book  still  in  hand,  was  repeated.  All  this  was  painful  in 
the  extreme,  to  every  English  or  American  Episcopalian  present,  and 
showed  but  too  clearly  that  the  Book  was  not  used  for  the  sake  of 
the  service. 

Now  they  are  these  things  which  seem  to  me  to  show  the  desire 
of  the  missionaries  to  appear  to  the  Eastern  Christians  as  possessing 
a  certain  ecclesiastical  character, — a  ministry  which  they,  without 
inquiry,  will  acknowledge  real  and  valid.  And  when  I  said  that  the 
missionaries  would  heartily  concur  in  the  sentiment  of  another  of 
their  number,  that  ‘  he  often  wished  he  w^ere  an  Episcopalian,’  I  in¬ 
tended  it  in  this  sense,  that  they  would  be  glad  to  have  a  recognized 
clerical  character,  w^hich  involves,  in  an  Eastern  man’s  conception, 
something  Episcopal  in  being  or  origin.  I  did  not  mean  to  say  that 
they  have  any  particular  desire  to  be  clergymen  of  the  English  or 
^imerican  Episcopal  Church.*  I  fully  acquit  them  of  any  excessive 
affection  for  either.  But  I  did  mean  to  say, — and  now  repeat  from 
their  own  acknowledgment, — that  they  see  and  feel  the  importance 
of  an  acknowledged  clerical  character,  and  that  they  are  unwulling 
to  take  the  course  w^hich  will  inevitably  lead  to  the  discovery  of  what 
their  present  clerical  character  consists  in. 

The  testimony  which  they  adduce  of  an  English  Episcopal  mis¬ 
sionary,  that  he  acknowledged  their  superior  advantages  as  Congre- 
gationalists,  does  not  bear  upon  the  subject.  He  acknowledged, 
according  to  their  own  showing,  not  the  advantage  of  non-Episco- 
pacy,  but  the  advantage  of  being  subjected  to  no  “  canons  or  rules,” 
which  is  quite  another  matter.  The  missionaries  will  not  deny  that, 
ceieris  paribus,  an  Episcopally  ordained  missionary  has  an  advantage 
among  Episcopally  constituted  Churches.  If  they  do  deny  it,  the 
common  sense  of  mankind  is  enough  to  appeal  to  for  the  contrary. 
Of  this  advantage  I  am  not  disposed  to  boast.  I  view  it  with  deep 
humility  and  with  deep  sorrow  of  heart  that  my  own  Church  has 
hitherto  so  little  felt  the  obligation  resulting  from  it.  Let  us  all  use 
our  gifts  as  the  Lord  has  given  to  us,  with  no  vain-glorying,  but  with 
a  fearful  sense  of  our  account  ableness  for  them.  But  I  must  say,  as 
bearing  upon  the  argument  in  hand,  that  since  my  pamphlet  W'as 
written,  I  have  had  the  testimony  of  another  Congregational  mission¬ 
ary  to  the  same  effect  as  before, — namely,  that  the  Episcopal  Church 
has,  in  its  Episcopacy,  a  decided  advantage  for  effort  among  the 
Oriental* Churches, — which,  I  hope,  may  settle  the  matter. 

I  have  been  much  amused  with  an  argument  inserted  in  the  An- 

^  I  did  say,  and  do  say,  however,  that  the  use  of  the  gown.  Prayer  Book,  sign 
of  the  cross,  and  such  like  practices,  have  caused  them  to  be  taken  for  clergymen 
of  one  of  these  Churches;  and  of  this  I  have  given  at  least  two  examples  in  the 
course  of  this  letter.  Two  others,  at  this  moment,  occur  to  me,  but,  for  the  sake 
of  brevity,  I  omit  them.  [  will  say,  however,  that  the  mistake  has  been  a  com¬ 
mon  one,  and  I  could  certainly  recall,  by  a  slight  effort  of  recollection,  many  par¬ 
ticular  instances  of  it. 


12 


nual  Report  of  the  American  Board  for  1844,  (p.  93,)  in  which  Dr. 
King,  a  missionary  of  that  Board  in  Athens,  maintains  that,  inasmuch 
as  he  and,  he  presumes,  his  other  brethren  of  the  Board  hold,  with 
the  Eastern  Churches,  that  the  Procession  of  the  Holy  Ghost  is  from 
the  Father,  while  we  of  the  Episcopal  Church  hold  it  to  be  from  the 
Father  and  the  Son,  therefore,  he  and  his  brethren  have  the  advan¬ 
tage  over  us.  Suppose  an  Eastern  Christian  should  inquire  of  him, 
‘  As  you  accept  our  dogma  on  this  point,  1  presume  you  accept  the 
Nicene  Creed  which  contains  it  V  of  what  particular  advantage 
would  it  be  to  acknowledge  that  he  accepted  no  creeds  whatever  ? 

I  wdll  here  say,  that  the  lines  in  my  former  pamphlet  which  were 
printed  in  staring  capitals,”  as  the  missionaries  are  pleased  to  call 
them,  were  so  printed  without  my  knowledge  or  consent.  On  the 
contrary,  I  was  sorry  to  see  it,  for  it  had  the  effect  to  draw  away  at¬ 
tention  from  the  main  argument,  and  fix  it  upon  a  mere  incident, 
which  was  very  casually  introduced,  and  which,  I  believe,  was  not  in 
my  mind  five  minutes  before  I  wrote  it.  I  did  not  intend  to  draw 
particular  attention  to  the  use  of  the  clerical  dress.  Prayer  Book,  &c. 
by  the  missionaries;  but  the  good  friend  to  whom  I  sent  the  manu¬ 
script,  undertook  to  make  it  more  conspicuous  by  doubly  underscoring 
the  lines  which  spoke  of  it.  This  has  .occasioned  a  great  expenditure 
of  words  on  what  might  otherwise  have  been  a  very  subordinate  part 
of  the  argument.  Let  the  pamphlet  be  read  without  this  change,  and 
the  whole  scope  of  the  argument  will  be  much  better  understood.  1 
assure  my  brethren,  that  it  was  none  of  my  doing  that  they  were  so 
unpleasantly  affected  by  these  “  staring  capitals,”  standing  out  in  bold 
relief,  the  very  “  head  and  front  of  my  offending.” 

The  missionaries  talk  (p.  16)  of  “pouring  absolute  contempt 
on  all  formal  religions  by  conforming  to  all  forms,  so  far  as  they  inno¬ 
cently  can.”  But  to  my  humble  conception  it  appears  to  be  doing 
honor  to  all,  and  is  so  understood,  1  fear,  by  the  formal  “  Episcopa¬ 
lians,  Lutherans  and  French”  who  observe  it.  1  could  well  understand 
that  the  Episcopal  dress  was  contemned,  if  it  were  not  used  ;  but  it 
is  hard  to  conceive  of  its  being  used  out  of  contempt  for  it.  1  cannot 
well  imagine  what  must  be  the  feelings  of  the  missionaries  when  thus 
adorned  with  what  they  so  much  despise,  nor  can  1  conceive  what  re¬ 
lief  they  can  have  from  the  oppressive  sense  of  being  decked  out  in 
“  the  littleness  of  mere  forms,”  unless  it  is  in  the  consoling  assurance, 
which  they  allude  to,  that  they  are  thus  “  gaining  the  more.”  If  they 
“  had  been  as  uncompromising  and  unaccommodating  in  regard  tc 
their  simplicity  of  forms  as  others  are  in  regard  to  their  exuberance,”' 
they  might  have  lost  the  satisfaction  of  such  extra  “  gains,”  but  it 
would  have  been  with  the  advantage  of  showung  forth  their  “  sim¬ 
plicity,”  and  thus  protesting  against  the  formalism  which  they  seem  so 
zealous  to  overthrow.  But  I  see  not  with  what  consistency  they  adopt 
forms  to  cure  formalism,  unless  it  is  upon  some  homoeopathic  principle 
of  missionary  labor ;  nor  how  they  are  going  to  relieve  the  “  poor 


13 


Eastern  Christians”  of  the  enormous  weiprht  of  their  forms  and 
ceremonies,”  [Reply,  p.  8,)  if  they  show  themselves  so  anxious  to 
“  conform  to  all  forms.”  A  “  missionary  whose  conscience  will  permit 
him  to  pursue  this  course,  may,  indeed,  acquire  a  greater  influence  over 
the  Bishops  and  other  ecclesiastics  of  these  Churches  than  a  Presby¬ 
terian  and  Congregational  missionary”  (appearing  in  his  ‘‘  simplicity”) 
can  expect  to  do,”  “  but  it  will  obviously  be  an  influence  for  evil 
and  not  for  good,”  since  those  Bishops  and  other  ecclesiastics,  and 
laymen  too,  will  be  prone  to  imagine  there  is  some  greater  virtue  in 
forms  than  they  ever  supposed,  when  they  thus  see  men  recommending 
them  to  their  attention  by  being  willing  to  adopt  any  that  come  to 
hand,  and  especially  if  they  know  that  of  themselves  they  have  none 
at  all.  “  If  these  things  be  done  in  the  green  tree,  what  will  be  done 
in  the  dry  ?”  If  the  Presbyterian  and  Congregational  missionaries 
thus  sanction  the  “  weakness,”  as  they  call  it,  of  our  Eastern  brethren, 
what  can  they  expect  of  me,  but  that  I  should  so  far  sanction  it  as  to 
retain  the  forms  which  I  use  at  home  ?  I  do  not  go  beyond  the  lim¬ 
its  of  my  Church,  to  ‘‘  accommodate  myself  to  the  great  weakness  of 
tnen,”  [Reply,  p.  16,)  while  they  adopt  what  their  brethren  at  home 
preach  against  and  w^rite  against  without  cessation.  I  use  no  habit, 
prayer  book,  or  ceremony,  w^hich  is  not  recognized  by  my  own  Church, 
while  they  exceed  all  Congregational  and  Presbyterian  bounds,  “  by 
conforming  to  all  forms,”  using  a  Prayer  Book  which  Presbyterians 
and  Congregationalists  here  will  never,  I  fear,  so  far  “  make  themselves 
our  servants”  that  they  may  gain  us,”  as  to  adopt  the  use  of,  and 
wearing  a  dress  which,  in  this  western  world,  is  often  held  as  no  better 
than  a  “  rag  of  Popery.”  My  brethren  have  spoken  severely,  very 
severely,  of  me  in  this  pamphlet,  as  addicted  to  forms,  and  they  even 
use  the  awful  language,  (p.  44,)  that,  “  in  my  mind  Episcopacy  and 
a  liturgy  are  far  more  important  than  any  thing  else,  even  than  the 
precious  doctrine  of  Christ  and  Him  crucified  but  let  me  say  to 
thetn,  that,  in  these  thin2i;s,  I  stop  short  of  themselves,  since  I  use  only 
what  I  have,  and  they  adopt  what  they  have  not.  Let  no  more,  then, 
be  said  of  my  addiction  to  forms.  My  use  of  the  characteristics  of  my 
Church,  as  a  means  of  influence  and  usefulness,  finds  its  highest  recom¬ 
mendation  in  their  example. 

But  it  seems  I  not  only  spoke  of  their  use  of  the  dress  and  Prayer 
Book  and  sign  of  the  cross,  but  added,  “  and  other  such  like  practices 
unknown  to  Congregationalists  at  home.”  The  missionaries  are  of¬ 
fended  with  this,  {Reply  p.  17.)  They  say  that  if  I  had  known  of 
any  thing  else,  I  should  doubtless  have  mentioned  it,  and  because  I 
did  not  mention  it,  they  call  in  question  my  “justice,  truth,  and  hon¬ 
esty.”  Now,  I  am  not  in  the  habit  of  using  words  wuthout  meaning. 
I  think  I  may  safely  say  this,  as  the  missionaries  themselves  give  me 
credit  for  it.  They  say,  (p.  33,)  that  “  Mr.  Southgate  is  not  a  hasty 
man.  He  acts,  usually,  with  thought  and  deliberation.”  I  might 
have  thanked  them  for  the  compliment,  if  it  were  not  introduced  to 


14 


prove  a  “  malice  prepense.”  But,  as  it  is,  it  may  go  to  show  that 
even  in  their  estimation,  I  am  not  likely  to  engage  in  wholesale 
charges,”  or  to  say  what  I  cannot  prove.  By  “such  like  practices  ” 
I  mean,  (to  take  an  example,)  such  things  as  the  observance  of  our 
Feasts  and  Fasts.  They  are  in  the  habit  of  keeping,  and  that  by 
public  services  for  the  occasion,  Christmas,  Good  Friday  and  Easter. 
There  might  be  some  apology  for  this  before  the  English  Church  was 
established  in  Pera,  and  when  a  few  English  residents  attended  their 
worship  and  could  not  attend  their  own.  But  the  same  thing  has 
continued  since,  and  an  Eastern  Christian  has  once  said  to  me  on  one 
of  these  days,  seeing  that  I  was  observing  it  according  to  our  custom 
at  home,  “  You  have,  then,  the  same  holydays  with  the  other  mis¬ 
sionaries,  for  I  have  just  come  from  one  of  their  houses,”  [Mr. 
Dwight’s,  I  believe  he  said,]  “  and  they  are  keeping  it  also.”  This 
may  be  counted  a  second  instance  in  which  an  Eastern  Christian  has 
mistaken  their  character  from  their  adoption  of  usages  unknown  to 
their  people  in  this  country.  I  call  this  one  of  the  “  such  like  prac¬ 
tices  unknown  to  Congregationalists  at  home,”  and  others  can  be 
added  if  this  does  not  suffice.  But  I  have  said  enough  to  prove  that  1 
do  not  speak  without  knowing  what  lam  about  to  say,  and  do  not 
leave  things  written  without  considering  their  nature  and  their  import. 
I  wish  to  utter  no  innuendoes,  nor  to  bring  “  odium  ”  upon  others  by 
“  indefinite  accusations.” 

But  let  us  turn  to  a  more  serious  the  nature  of  my  mission 

and  its  relations  to  the  operations  of  the  American  Board.  The  mis¬ 
sionaries  have  gone  into  a  mass  of  evidence  to  prove  that  my  designs 
and  my  practice  have  been  hostile  to  them,  and  that  my  views  are 
such  as  militate  against  all  evangelical  efforts  for  the  reviving  and  pu¬ 
rifying  of  the  Eastern  Churches.  Now,  of  all  this  I  wish  to  say,  that 
their  alleged  facts  are,  in  every  instance.,  incorrect,  or  that  they  consist 
of  forced  and  wrong  constructions  put  upon  the  truth.  Let  me  show  it. 

When  they  talk  (p.  8)  of  my  going  out  in  1840,  “  determined  to 
act  on  the  most  exclusive  high  church  principles,”  they  say  that  of 
which  there  is  not  only  no  evidence  whatever,  but  which  is  entirely 
contrary  to  truth.  Such  an  idea  never  entered  my  mind.  During  my 
first  visit  tc  Turkey,  and  when  1  was  on  the  most  kindly  terms  with 
them,  1  conceived  the  idea  of  using  the  character  of  our  Church  as  a 
means  and  instrument  of  usefulness  among  the  Oriental  Communions. 
It  never  entered  my  thoughts  to  oppose  others.  The  plan  was 
formed  wffiile  I  was  still  in  that  country  and  cordially  intimate 
w’ith  them,  and  I  viewed  it  simply  as  the  use  of  an  instrumen¬ 
tality  for  the  religious  welfare  of  our  Eastern  brethren, — an  instru¬ 
mentality  which  the  good  Providence  of  God  had  placed  in  our  hands, 
and  for  the  use  of  which  we  were  plainly  accountable.  My  own  idea 
is  well  expressed  in  a  recent  number  of  the  “  Episcopal  Protestant,”  a 
journal  which  cannot  be  supposed  to  take  “  exclusive  ”  or  peculiarly 
“  high  church  ”  views  on  the  subject.  In  its  number  for  December 


15 


5th,  a  correspondent,  with  whom  the  Editor  seems  entirely  to  concur, 
thus  writes :  “  Our  own  opinion  is  that  the  Episcopal  Church,  from 
similar  organization,  does  possess  peculiar  advantages  in  her  efforts 
among  Oriental  Christian  Bodies,  and  that  if  a  Missionary  Bishop  and 
his  Presbyters,  understanding  and  appreciating  the  Gospel  and  imbued 
with  its  spirit,  should  approach  with  trust  in  and  prayer  to  Christ  these 
benighted  souls,  they  might  be,  with  the  divine  blessing,  most  of  all, 
likely  to  enlist  the  sympathies  of  dignitaries,  obtain  a  favorable  hear¬ 
ing,  win  them  to  the  truth,  and  ensure  a  co-operation  in  the  work.”  I 
do  not  know  that  my  earliest  and  my  present  idea  could  be,  on  the 
whole,  better  stated  than  in  this  short  paragraph.*  •  It  was  with  a 
sim-ple,  single  desire  of  henefting  spiritually  our  Eastern  brethren, 
that  I  conceived  and  still  maintain  the  necessity  and  duty  of  acting 
honestly  and  openly  in  our  real  character.  I  believed  that  it  would 
prove  a  source  of  influence,  a  means  of  grace,  an  aid  in  well-doing. 
This  was  the  whole  of  my  plan.  I  made  it  known  to  our  Foreign 
Committee,  immediately  upon  my  return  to  the  United  States  in 
1838,  as  you  may  see  one  evidence  in  a  communication  from  me, 
written  a  few  days  after  my  arrival,  and  published  in  the  “  Spirit  of 
Missions”  for  February,  1839.  I  then  said,  that  “  my  own  observa¬ 
tions  had  satisfied  me  that  this  was  the  only  plan  upon  which  Missions 
from  the  Church  of  England  or  of  America,  to  the  Churches  of  the 
East,  should  be  formed.”  The  ‘  metamorphosis,’  then,  of  which  the 
missionaries  speak,  took  place  in  me  in  the  short  space  of  a  few  months, 
while  I  was  coming  from  Constantinople  to  America.  But  the  truth  is, 
the  idea  was  entertained,  the  plan  was  formed,  long  before  I  left  Turkey, 
and  while  I  was  still  in  friendly  intercourse  with  them.  When  I  re¬ 
turned  to  Turkey,  they  objected  to  it,  they  have  done  so  ever  since, 
until,  going  from  suspicion  to  suspicion,  from  surmise  to  surmise,  from 
hostility  to  hostility,  they  have,  at  length,  brought  me  into  this  open 
controversy  with  them. 

But  now  it  is  begun,  the  truth  must  be  known.  They  acknow¬ 
ledge  (p.  6)  their  objecting  to  our  making  known  the  ‘  forms  and  cere¬ 
monies,  the  church  order  and  government  ’  of  our  Communion.  They 
think  it  ‘  undesirable.’  But  let  me  ask  them,  how  it  can  possibly  be 
avoided.  An  Eastern  Christian — let  us  say,  an  ecclesiastic— inquires 
of  me,  who  1  am,  to  w'hat  Church  I  belong,  and  goes  on  to  ask  sundry 


^  I  object  only  to  the  word  “benighted.”  Twilight,  not  midnight,  is  the 
metaphor  which  most  justly  describes  the  state  of  the  Eastern  Churches,  when 
spoken  of  collectively.  Where  I  see  souls  eager  for  knowledge,  holding  the  faith 
as  it  is  in  Jesus  with  entire  sincerity,  though  but  partially  instructed  ;  where  I  see 
men  (as  I  have  seen  two  in  Constantinople  alone)  giving  themselves  to  horrible 
torture  and  to  an  awful  death  rather  than  deny  that  faith  )  where  I  see  thousands 
and  tens  of  thousands  holding  it  in  profession,  though  persecuted,  cast  down, 
peeled,  and  scattered  therefor,  I  cannot  say,  in  strict  accuracy  of  speech,  that  the 
darkness  of  night  is  justly  descriptive  of  tlieir  condition.  Oh,  when  shall  we 
feel  that  love,  and  nothing  hut  love,  will  prevail  to  win  from  error  and  to  build  up 
our  brethren  in  their  most  holy  faith  ? 


16 


other  questions  concerning  it.  Shall  I  answer  him  ?  If  I  do,  I  bring 
to  his  view,  ‘  forms  and  ceremonies,  church  order  and  government.’ 
If  I  do  not,  he  fairly  suspects  my  character  and  my  purpose.  But 
more  than  this,  I  find  that  by  announcing  myself  as  of  an  Episcopal 
Church,  by  describing  to  him  its  order,  its  ministry,  its  ritual,  its  faith, 
I  gain  an  important  advantage  with  him,  I  establish  a  character,  I  se¬ 
cure  a  degree  of  confidence,  1  awaken  respect,  and  thus  obtain  a 
better  opportunity  for  speaking  with  him  of  the  interests  and  duties  of 
religion.  One  of  their  brethren  says,  he  thinks  he  has  an  advantage 
in  being  able  to  say  to  an  Eastern  Christian,  that  he  believes  in  the 
Procession  from  the  Father.  He  thinks  that  it  is  a  recommendation, 
a  passport  to  confidence,  a  means  of  usefulness.  I  acknowledge  it  to 
be  so,  so  far  as  it  goes,  though,  in  his  case,  nullified  entirely  by  his 
rejection  of  the  Creed.  And  is  there  no  advantage  in  being  able  to 
speak  of  the  Three  Orders,  the  early  Creeds,  a  Liturgy,  and  fifty  other 
things,  as  ours  ?  And  if  so,  am  I  not  to  use  them  for  the  purpose  ? 
Dr.  King  actually  uses,  as  I  have  long  since  heard,  his  belief  in  the 
Single  Procession,  as  a  means  of  influence ;  and  am  1  not  to  use  the 
other  things  mentioned  ?  This  is  the  w'hole  question,  and  beyond  this 
I  intend  nothing. 

Again,  the  missionaries  say  (p.  18)  that  we  Protestants  are  all 
called  by  the  Easterns,  without  discrimination,  ‘  Lutherans,  Freema¬ 
sons  and  followers  of  Voltaire,’  the  second  term  (Freemasons)  meaning 
‘  Infidels,’  in  the  mouth  of  an  Oriental.  Now  I  acknowledge  that  such 
is  the  case.  Our  whole  Western  Christianity  is  looked  upon  by  those 
of  the  Eastern  Christians  who  know  nothing  about  it,  that  is,  by  the 
great  mass  of  them,  as  a  mongrel  institution,  half  Christianity  and 
half  Infidelity.  But  am  I  to  be  content  with  this  state  of  things,  so  far 
as  I  am  concerned  1  Am  I  to  have  no  influence,  for  evidently  I  can 
have  none  while  lying  under  this  imputation?  Or  am  I  to  show'  its 
untruth  by  showing  who  I  am  ?  And  if  I  do  this,  w’hat  is  it  but  to 
make  knowm  my  Church  ?  I  thank  my  God,  that,  wherever  I  have 
done  it,  it  has  at  once  given  me  an  influence,  and  that  influence  I  have 
endeavored  faithfully  to  use  for  the  present  and  eternal  w^elfare  of  iny 
brethren. 

And  now,  must  I  forego  this  ?  If  not,  (and  I  believe  that  even 
these  my  estranged  brethren  at  Constantinople  cannot,  with  a  fair 
and  open  conscience,  say  I  ought  to  forego  it,)  they  at  once  acknow¬ 
ledge  all  that  I  claim,  all  that  I  have  ever  claimed,  all  that  I  desire. 
Still  it  is  obnoxious  to  them.  Let  'us  see  why.  They  say  (p.  6)  they 
“  have  no  hostility  to  Episcopal  missionaries  as  such.”  But  they  have 
hostility  to  them,  if  they  set  forth  their  ‘  forms  and  ceremonies,  church 
order  and  government,’  as  such.  And  why  this?  Because  (and  this 
is  the  beginning  and  end  of  our  offence)  it  sets  them  forth  also,  inci¬ 
dentally,  as  not  such,  and  hence  places  them  at  a  disadvantage.  It 
makes  them  known*eventually  as  non-Episcopalians,  as  destitute  of 
those  things  by  which  we  declare  ourselves.  I  am  sorry  for  it :  I  wish 


17 


they  were  not  Congregationalists ;  I  wish  they  were  Episcopalians. 
But  as  it  is,  I  see  not  how  the  difficulty  is  to  be  gotten  over,  unless 
they  become  so,  “imitate  my  example,”  as  they  say,  (p.  1*2,)  and 
“  come  into  the  Episcopal  fold.”  I  assure  them  they  shallhe  “  readily 
received,”  ‘  as  readily  as  I  was,’  if  they  come  with  the  same  convic¬ 
tions,  and  nothing  will  afford  me  greater  pleasure  than  to  aid  them  in 
so  laudable  ‘  a  metamorphosis.’ 

But  they  will  say  that  I  have  acted  in  hostility  to  them.  To  this 
point  I  shall  now  speak,  and  I  humbly  pray  that  I  may  have  grace  to 
speak  with  that  plainness  and  sincerity  which  becomes  me.  I  hope 
I  have  said  enough  already,  to  show  that  my  Mission  in  184G  began 
with  no  hostility  to  them.  But  they  refer  (p.  19)  to  the  instructior  s 
which  I  received  from  the  Presiding  Bishop,  and  especially  to  this 
passage  :  “  You  may  further  state  to  them,  [the  clergy  and  people  of 
the  Eastern  Churches,]  that  many  of  those  called  Protestants,  have 
rejected,  and  are  still  so  opposed  to.  Episcopacy  and  Confirmation  and 
the  use  of  Liturgies,  that  an  intimate  fellowship  and  connection  with 
them  is  at  present  impracticable.”  Now  the  missionaries,  in  arguing 
upon  this,  through  three  whole  pages,  (pp.  19,  20,  21,)  argue  upon  a 
palpable  misinterpretation.*  They  take  the  “  intimate  fellowship  and 
connection”  alluded  to,  as  referring  to  a  union  between  them,  the  mis¬ 
sionaries  of  the  American  Board,  and  the  Oriental  Churches,  and  that 
we  are  to  instruct  the.latter  that  such  a  “  connection  ”  is  “  impractica¬ 
ble,”  that  is,  we  are  to  warn  the  Eastern  Christians  against  any  “  fel¬ 
lowship  or  connection”  with  non-Episcopal  missionaries.  But  the 
true  sense  of  the  passage  is  entirely  different.  The  Bishop  means  to 
say,  as  is  evident  on  the  very  face  of  his  language,  that  an  “  intimate 
fellowship  and  connection”  between  ourselves,  the  American  Episco¬ 
pal  Church,  and  the  other  Protestants  alluded  to,  is  impracticable. 
The  same  is  plain  also  from  the  context ;  for  he  goes  on  to  say,  after 
alluding  to  a  fellowship  with  Rome,  as  impracticable  for  other  reasons, 
“  Under  such  circumstances,  our  thoughts  and  affections  are  particular¬ 
ly  directed  and  strongly  drawn  to  our  brethren  of  the  Eastern  Church¬ 
es,”  &c.  Now,  what  is  all  this  but  to  say  that,  inasmuch  as  we  can¬ 
not  have  “  intimate  fellowship  and  connection”  with  non-Episcopal, 
non-Liturgical  Protestants  on  the  one  hand,  nor  with  Rome  on  the  oth¬ 
er,  our  “  thoughts  and  affections”  are  ‘  strongly  directed’  towards  the 
Eastern  Churches  ?  But  the  missionaries,  by  putting  another,  and  en¬ 
tirely  different,  construction  upon  it,  and  supposing  it  to  refer  to  a 
connection  between  themselves  and  the  Eastern  Churches,  and  far¬ 
ther  taking  it  for  granted,  (in  that  very  liberal  way  of  allowing  me 
good  qualities  for  a  bad  purpose,  which  I  have  before  alluded 
to,)  that  I  am  obedient  to  instructions,  infer  that  I  Jjiave  con- 

‘  And  not  only  in  three  whole  pages  consecutively,  but  they  allude  to  it  in 
other  parts,  and  in  fact  the  main  strength  of  their  pamphletc  onsists  in  arguments 
based  upon  their  erroneous  interpretation  of  this  single  passage.  All  the  rest,  so 
far  as  the  proof  of  hostility  is  concerned,  is  rumor  and  hearsay,  taken  from  natives. 

2 


18 


sequently  warned  the  Eastern  Christians  to  have  nothing:  to  do 
with  them.  By  removing  the  false  construction,  the  super¬ 
structure  of  their  argument  falls  to  the  ground  ;  and  although  they 
do  mention,  by  way  of  hypothesis,  on  pp.  20, 21,  a  variety  of  cases,  in 
which  the  Instructions,  according  to  their  interpretation  of  them,  might 
have  been,  or  may  have  been,  carried  out,  yet,  as  they  mention  them 
only  as  hypothetical  cases,  I  will  say  no  more  of  them  than  that  they 
are  as  visionary  as  their  interpretation  of  the  Instructions  themselves. 
If  they  mean  to  specify  actual  cases  of  such  warning  given  by  me  to 
Oriental  ecclesiastics  or  laymen,  they  must  specify  them  as  facts,  not 
as  suppositions,  I  give  no  innuendoes ;  I  can  take  none. 

The  missionaries,  while  putting  this  false  interpretation  on  one 
passage,  entirely  omit  another  in  which  specif  c  instructions  are  given, 
as  to  our  conduct  towards  other  missionaries.  The  Presiding  Bishop 
says,  “  You  will  not,  we  trust,  neglect,  on  all  suitable  occasions,  to 
urge  the  vast  importance  of  brotherly  kindness  and  charity.  To  the 
standards  and  institutions  of  your  own  Church  it  will  be  your  duty  stead¬ 
fastly  to  adhere.  Those  standards  require  that  you  maintain  and  set 
forward,  as  much  as  lieth  in  you,  quietness,  peace,  and  love  among  all 
Christian  people  f  and  they  do  not  require  that  ....  or  that 
you  should  appear  in  hostile  array  against  Christians  of  any  name  ; — • 
rejoice  rather  in  whatever  good  they  do.  Divisions  among  Protest¬ 
ants  is  what,  more  perhaps  than  any  other  thing,  has  disgraced  their 
cause  and  obstructed  their  increase.”  This  passage  was  referred  to 
and  partly  quoted  in  my  “  Vindication,”  (p.  20.)  The  missionaries, 
in  replying  to  that  very  pamphlet,  omit  all  allusion  to  it,  and,  to  make 
out  a  proof  of  hostile  design  in  the  Instructions,  quote  another  passage, 
having  no  reference  to  my  intercourse  with  other  missionaries,  and  on 
that  put  a  false  construction. 

The  missionaries  say,  (p.  19,)  that  when  these  Instructions  were 
first  published,  they  expressed  to  Dr.  Robertson  and  myself  their  dis¬ 
satisfaction  with  the  passage  above  quoted,  and  that  we  then  replied 
that  they‘  must  not  understand  the  Bishop  literally,  that  he  was  an  old 
man  and  not  much  acquainted  with  the  business  of  giving  instructions 
to  missionaries,’  &c.  Now  I  am  not  near  enough,  at  this  present  writ¬ 
ing,  to  my  reverend  brother  Robertson,  to  consult  his  memory  upon 
the  subject,  but  I  most  distinctly  recollect  that^/m  passage  was  never 
alluded  to  between  us.‘  There  was  one  passage,  in  the  Instructions 
of  the  Foreign  Secretary,  referred  to,  and  to  that  we  gave  what  ap¬ 
peared  to  be  a  satisfactory  explanation.  The  only  passage  in  the. 
Presiding  Bishop’s  Instructions,  which  was  brought  under  discussion, 
was  near  the  commencement,  where  he  says,  There  is  good  reason 
to  hope  and  to  believe  that  the  cultivation  of  Christian  fellowship  with 


'  Since  writing  this,  I  have  had  the  unexpected  pleasure  of  an  interwiew  with 
iny  respected  brother,  and  find  that  his  recollection  accords  entirely  with  mine  on 
this  and  every  other  point  in  the  pamphlet,  in  “which  we  were  mutually  con¬ 
cerned. 


19 


our  brethren  of  the  Greek  and  Armenian  Churches,”  &c.  The  word 
Jlrmenian  seemed  to  have  startled  the  missionaries,  and  they  wished 
to  know  whether  we  intended  to  direct  our  labors  to  them  also.  We 
replied  that  we  had  no  such  intention  at  present,  and  when  they  refer¬ 
red  to  the  word  in  the  Instructions,  as  seeming  to  include  them  with 
the  Greeks,  we  said  that  the  Bishop  doubtless  was  not  minutely  ac¬ 
quainted  with  the  designation  of  our  fields,  and  had  used  the  term  in  a 
general  way,  without  any  particular  thought  about  it.  The  Bishop,  I 
may  further  add,  both  “  saw”  and  ‘‘  WTote”  the  Instructions,  every 
word  of  them,  as  his  own  original  draft,  now  before  me,  testifies.  I 
believe,  too,  he  was  a  man  who  was,  of  all  men,  least  likely  to  ‘  pen  a 
passage  wuthout  a  full  knowledge  of  its  true  import,’  though,  doubtless 
he  had  not  a  full  knowledge  of  the  imports  that  others  might  put  upon  it. 

I  pass  now  to  other  matters.  The  missionaries  evidently  did  not 
like  the  principle  of  our  making  known  our  Church,  and  objected  to 
it  on  my  arrival  in  Constantinople  in  1840.  Others  also  objected  to 
it,  among  whom  were  the  Secretary  of  the  American  Board,  (the 
Rev.  Dr.  Anderson,)  and  a  missionary  of  that  Board,  as  stated  in  my 
Vindication,”  (pp.  18  and  21.)  No  unpleasant  differences,  however, 
followed.  Our  intercourse  was  still  friendly,  though  wanting  that 
earnest  cordiality  which  existed  when  I  was  a  stranger  in  the  land, 
and  engaged  in  no  distinctively  Episcopal  Mission.  No  complaint  of 
interference”  or  “  hostility”  was  heard  until  the  fall  of  1842,  when 
Dr.  Robertson  had  left  the  Mission,  and  I  was  there  alone.*  Then 
came  the  beginning  of  troubles.  I  read  one  day  an  article  in  the  * 
Missionary  Herald,  (the  monthly  publication  of  the  American  Board,) 
to  an  Armenian,  whom  I  had  supposed  friendly  to  the  labors  of  the 
missionaries,  although  I  knew  that  he  disapproved  of  certain  of  their 
inodes  of  effort  on  the  ground  of  expediency.  He  had  always  spoken 
kindly  of  them  and  of  their  work,  and  had  been  much  under  their 
instruction.  The  article  excited  him  intensely,  because  it  spoke  of 
the  desirableness  of  a  schism  in  the  Armenian  Church,  to  which  he, 
it  seems^  was  much  opposed.  I  read  it  to  him  merely  for  the  sake  of 
learning  his  opinion  as  to  the  designs  of  the  missionaries  in  this  re¬ 
spect,  and  strictly  forbad  its  going  farther  than  to  another  Armenian, 
now  in ’this  country,  and  who  was  then,  and  had  long  been,  a  fellow- 
worker  and  most  intimate  friend  of  the  missionaries.  To  him  I  allow¬ 
ed  it  to  be  mentioned,  for  the  sake  of  gaining  farther  information,  and 
particularly  because  I  knew  that  he  would  speak  of  it  to  the  mission¬ 
aries,  and  receive  doubtless  some  explanation  upon  the  subject,  i 
evidently  could  not  question  them  as  to  their  designs  and  operations. 

^  Early  in  1842,  and  after  I  had  been,  since  my  return  frem  America,  a  year 
and  a  half  in  the  field,  it  was  announced  to  Dr.  Robertson  and  myself,  by  letters 
from  the  United  States^  that  complaints  were  ^/lerc  made  of  our  interfering  with  the 
missionaries  of  the  American  Board.  We  immediately  requested  a  conference 
with  them,  and  inquired  whether  they  had  any  such  complaints  to  make.  They 
(Messrs.  Goodell  and  Dwight  being  present)  replied  that  they  had  not,  but  ob¬ 
jected,  as  they  had  formerly  done,  to  the  Episcopal  features  of  our  mission. 


20 


But  the  article  went  farther,  and,  without  my  knowledge  and  entirely 
against  my  wish,  w^as  made  known  among  the  few  Armenians  who 
had  been,  or  were,  immediately  connected  with  the  missionaries.  A 
considerable  excitement  was  the  consequence.  I  told  the  missionaries, 
w^hen  they  brought  the  matter  to  my  attention,  that  I  had  no  thought 
of  doing  injury  to  them  in  reading  the  article,  that  it  had  gone  abroad 
much  to  my  regret;  and  I  cheerfully  consented  to  do  all  in  my  power 
to  arrest  its  evil  effects.^  This  I  did  by  seeing  the  Armenians  who 
were  excited  by  it,  conveying  to  them  the  explanation  of  the  mission¬ 
aries,  as  it  was  given  to  me,  and  earnestly  and  sincerely  entreating 
them  to  let  the  whole  matter  pass  by.  This  I  persuaded  them  to  do, 
but  they  insisted  upon  the  suspension  of  a  certain  meeting  held  by  the 
missionaries  in  one  of  their  houses,  for  the  Armenians ;  saying  that 
they  had  long  feared  its  tendencies,  lest  it  might  lead  to  schism.^  I 
ascertained,  however,  from  them,  that  their  objections  to  this  meeting 
were  of  long  standing,  and  had  nothing  to  do  with  the  article  in  the 
Herald,  that  they  had  existed  months  before  that  article  was  made 
known  to  them.  I  declined,  therefore,  to  enter  into  any  questions 
relating  to  the  meeting,  as  that  was  a  matter  between  themselves  and 
the  missionaries.  I  merely  insisted  that  no  action  with  reference  to 
it,  should  be  based  upon  the  article  in  the  Herald  ;  to  which  they  all 
agreed,  and  promised  accordingly  that  the  article  should  he  as  though 
it  never  had  been  written.  Here  I  supposed  my  agency  ceased.  I 
had  read  an  article  in  the  Herald  to  an  Armenian ;  it  had,  much  to 
my  regret,  gone  abroad ;  when  informed  by  the  missionaries  that  it 
was  doing  them  injury,  I  acted  at  once  upon  my  principle  of  not  in¬ 
terfering  with  their  work,  and  promptly  repaired  the  injury.  The 
meeting  referred  to,  I  afterwards  heard,  had  been  suspended,  and,  after 
the  lapse  of  two  or  three  weeks,  opened  again.  But  with  this  I  had 
nothing  to  do.  I  supposed  that  every  thing  between  me  and  the 
missionaries  had  been  fully  settled.  No  allusion  was  ever  afterward 
made  to  the  matter  among  us.  I  believed  it  to  be  entirely  past, 
arranged,  and  done  Avith,  and  my  thoughts  recurred  to  other  things. 

^  I  expressly  told  the  missionaries,  that  if  I  had  wished  to  injure  them  by  the 
article,  1  should  not  have  shown  it  to  a  private  person,  and  forbidden  him  to  men¬ 
tion  it  to  otliers,  but  should  have  exhibited  it  in  a  very  diflererit  quarter  :  meaning 
to  the  Patriarch,  How  can  they  suppose  that  I  had  any  design  of  opposing  them 
by  it,  when  it  would  be  perfectly  easy,  by  laying  the  Herald  before  the  Heads  of 
the  Armenian  Church,  most  seriously  to  injure,  if  not  to  overthrow,  their  mis¬ 
sion  ? 

2  This  was  the  first  allusion  ever  made  to  the  meeting,  between  me  and  the 
Armenians  themselves.  There  was  not  a  word  in  the  article  concerning  it,  but 
they  took  occasion  of  the  excitement  arising  upon  that  article,  to  bring  forward  a 
matter  to  which  they  had  long  objected.  I  did  not  approve  the  meeting.  1 
thought  its  tendency  dangerous,  and  that  other  modes  of  effort  might  be  better 
adopted.  I  told  the  Armenians,  therefore,  upon  their  first  mention  of  it,  that  it 
was  a  question  between  them  and  the  missionaries,  and  I  could  have  nothing  to 
do  with  it.  I  said,  however,  not  one  word  against  the  meeting.  Could  I  carry 
the  principle  of  non-interference  farther  than  this.^  If  I  had  approved  the  meet¬ 
ing,  I  would  have  defended  it.  Not  approving,  I  remained  silent. 


21 


At  the  close  of  the  conference,  when  I  promised  to  see  the  Armenians 
and  repair  the  evil  done,  we  parted  with  the  utmost  cordiality.  One 
remarked,  I  remember,  how  much  better  it  was  thus  to  have  a  free 
explanation,  than  to  suffer  things  to  rankle  in  secret, — to  which  ap¬ 
parently  all  assented.  I  understood  them  at  that  time  to  say  that 
they  did  not  think  my  reasons  for  reading  the  article  were  sufficient, 
but  that  they  believed  my  word  that  I  had  no  hostile  intentions  to¬ 
wards  them  in  reading  it,  and  all  appeared  to  be  satisfied  with  iny 
prompt  agreement  to  repair  the  injury.  So  the  matter  ended.  I 
walked  home  with  two  of  the  missionaries,  conversing  on  other  topics, 
in  the  most  friendly  manner.  The  next  day  I  saw  the  Armenians,  as 
I  have  related,  and  thereafter,  excepting  a  slight  allusion  to  it  by  one 
of  them,  not  a  word  passed  betw’een  me  and  the  missionaries  on  the 
subject.  I  thought  and  believed  fully  that  it  was  a  dead  matter. 

All  this  occurred  in  the  fall  of  1842.  The  next  spring,  an  Eng¬ 
lish  friend  told  me  that  he  had  heard  another  missionary  of  the  Amer¬ 
ican  Board,  in  another  place,  mention  my  having  shown  an  article 
in  the  Herald  to  an  Armenian.  I  expressed  my  surprise  to  my  friend, 
that  the  missionary  had  not  also  related  how  the  matter  was  settled. 
It  never  crossed  my  mind  to  imagine  that  the  missionary,  or  any  body 
else,  still  regarded  it  as  unsettled. 

In  the  summer  of  1843,  the  Rev.  Mr.  Purdy,  a  clergyman  of  our 
Church,  visited  Constantinople.  Having  been  a  classmate  of  one  of 
the  missionaries,  he  was  much  with  them.  In  this  way,  he  heard  of 
many  things,  and  I  learned  from  him  that  the  missionaries  W’ere  not 
very  cordial  towards  my  Mission.  This  I  knew  very  well.  They  did 
not  like  ray  work.  They  had  expressed  their  aversion  to  it  on  its  first 
commencement,  in  1840,  and  I  had  never  seen  reason  since  to  suppose 
that  their  feelings  or  opinions  had  changed.  1  also  did  not  approve 
all  their  operations,  and  I  had  freely  told  them,  in  the  conference  of 
the  preceding  fall,  wffiat  I  regarded  as  deleterious  and  dangerous  in 
their  wmrk.  But  Mr.  Purdy  did  not  allude  to  any  matters  of  com¬ 
plaint  ‘as  existing  among  them,  on  account  of  any  hostility  or  interfe¬ 
rence  on  my  part  wdth  their  labors.  He  barely  referred,  (and  that  I 
believe  in  answer  to  a  question  from  myself  whether  any  allusion 
had  been  made  to  the  affair  of  last  fall,)  to  the  fact  of  one  of  them 
having  mentioned  it;  but  I  did  not  understand  from  Mr.  P.,  that  they 
did  not  regard  it  as  entirely  settled.  In  the  full  confidence  of  such  a 
result,  I  continued  until  the  winter  of  that  year,  more  than  one  year 
after  the  event  occurred.  There  then  arrived  at  Constantinople  an 
account  of  the  Annual  Meeting  of  the  American  Board,  at  Rochester, 
in  September  1843.  In  that  account  appeared  a  statement,  made  at 
the  meeting  by  Dr.  Anderson,  a  Secretary  of  the  Board,  in  W'hich, 
after  alluding  to  another  individual,  he  referred  to  me  as  ‘  co-operating 
with — or  rather  perhaps  using — that  individual  to  bring  round  .that 
state  of  things  which  resulted  in  shutting  up  Mr.  DwdghPs  church, 
and  in  driving  Hohannes,  his  devoted  Christian  assistant,  to  this  coun- 


22 


try,’  and  subsequently  he  added,  in  reply  to  a  question,  that  I,  calling 
me  by  name,  ‘  had  co-operated  with  that  individual  in  all  the  opposi¬ 
tion  made  to  the  missionary  operations  of  the  Board,  and  had,  as  far 
as  my  influence  had  gone,  coincided  with  the  Papal  missionaries.’ 
The  extract  containing  this,  was  copied  for  me  by  Mr.  Homes,  one 
of  the  missionaries  at  Constantinople,  and  handed  to  me  by  him,  with 
the  remark,  that  he  ‘  did  not  know  where  Dr.  Anderson  could  have  got 
his  information.’  This  was  the  first  account  that  I  received  of  it, 
excepting  that  Mr.  Homes  had  informed  me,  a  few  days  previously, 
that  such  a  thing  had  appeared,  and  kindly  promised  to  copy  it  for 
me  from  the  ‘‘  Evangelist,”  as  his  copy  of  the  paper  belonged  to 
another. 

Immediately  after  the  appearance  of  the  article  in  America,  the 
Rev.  Mr.  Irving,  Secretary  to  our  Foreign  Committee,  addressed  a 
letter  to  Dr.  Anderson,  under  date  of  Oct.  5, 1843,  requesting  to  know 
whether  it  was  a  correct  report,  and  if  so,  upon  what  grounds  Dr.  A. 
had  felt  it  his  duty  to  bring  so  grave  an  accusation.’  Dr.  A.  replied, 
under  date  of  Oct.  7,  giving  his  own  report  of  his  remarks  at  the 
meeting  of  the  Board,  which  accorded  substantially  with  the  newspa¬ 
per  report,  with  the  exception  that  he  ‘  did  not  think  he  made  any 
reference  to  Papal  missionaries  while  speaking  of  me.’  The  whole 
correspondence  appears  in  the  Preface  to  the  missionaries’  Letter,  to 
which  I  am  now  replying.  In  answer  to  the  question  concerning  his 
authority  for  the  accusation.  Dr.  A.  replied,  that  ‘  mere  newspaper 
reports  could  not  make  it  proper  for  his  Society  to  go  into  a  formal 
inculpation  of  me.’  Is  not  this  most  extraordinary  language  ?  He  had 
publicly  said  things  of  the  most  serious  character  against  me.  When 
asked  if  they  were  correctly  reported,  he  gives  a  report  which  contains, 
in  the  main,  the  same  charges.  And  when  asked  for  his  authority, 
evades  the  question  by  referring  back  to  the  newspaper  report.  Is 
not  this,  to  say  the  least  of  it,  extraordinary  indeed  ? 

A  copy  of  this  correspondence  was  sent  to  me  by  Mr.  Irving,  who 
referred  it  to  my  own  judgment  to  decide  whether  any  farther  mea¬ 
sures  were  called  for.  The  whole  matter  had  filled  me  wfith  astonish¬ 
ment.  I  knew  not  what  to  think.  I  could  not  imagine  from  what 
source  Dr.  Anderson  had  derived  his  information,  upon  what  authority 
he  made  the  charges.  My  mind  turned  to  the  missionaries,  but  it 
seemed  to  me  utterly  impossible  that  they  could  have  written  any¬ 
thing  upon  which  Dr.  A.  could  base  such  a  statement ;  and  the  re¬ 
mark  of  Mr.  Homes  to  me,  made  it  clear  that  nothing  of  the  kind  had 
gone  from  them.  I  finally  settled  down  into  the  impression  that  as 
Hohannes,  the  person  referred  to  in  the  statement,  had  gone  to  Ame¬ 
rica,  he  must  have  made  some  report  to  Dr.  Anderson,  which  he,  Dr. 
A.,  had  incautiously  used  in  public.  Here  also  there  was  a  difficulty, 
for  Dr.  A.  must  also  have  had  reports  of  the  whole  matter  from  the 
missionaries,  and  if  those  reports  spoke  the  truth,  and  the  whole  truth, 
Dr.  A.  could  never  have  based  his  statements  on  them,  nor  could  he, 


23 


unless  most  inexcusably,  have  taken  and  made  public  a  different 
report  from  another  individual.  I  was  indeed  sorely  perplexed,  but 
eventually  thought  it  most  probable  that  Dr.  Anderson  had  allowed 
himself  to  adopt  some  story  of  Hohannes,  and  throw  it  upon  the  world. 
When  Mr.  Irving’s  letter  arrived,  and  I  saw  that  Dr.  Anderson  re¬ 
fused  to  give  his  authority,  I  determined  to  sift  the  matter  to  the  bot¬ 
tom,  and  for  this  purpose  I  began  by  addressing  the  following  letter 
to  the  missionaries,  hoping,  by  their  answer,  to  get  some  clue  to  the 
mystery. 


(Copy.) 

Pera,  Dec.  4,  1843. 

To  the  Rev.  Wm.  Goodell,  (for]tIie  Mission  of  the  A.  B.  C,  F.  M.,  Constantinople.) 

Rev.  and  Dear  Sir: — 

You  have  doubtless  seen  a  report  of  the  proceedings  of  the  A.  B. 
C.  F.  M.,  (under  which  you  and  your  associates  in,  this  city  are  acting,) 
at  their  late  Annual  Meeting  in  Rochester,  N.  Y.,  which  report  is 
contained  in  the  N.  Y.  Evangelist  of  Sept.  21,  and  you  have  doubt¬ 
less  read  the  remarks  of  Dr.  Anderson,  the  Secretary  of  the  Board,  at 
that  meeting,  in  which  (as  reported  by  the  Evangelist)  he  said,  men¬ 
tioning  me  by  name,  that  I  had  ‘  co-operated  with  the  Rev.  Mr.  Badger 
in  all  the  opposition  made  to  the  missionary  operations  of  the  Board, 
and  had,  as  far  as  my  influence  has  gone,  coincided  with  the  Papal 
missionaries.’ 

Upon  the  appearance  of  this  report  in  the  Evangelist,  the  Rev. 
Pierre  P.  Irving,  Secretary  of  the  Foreign  Committee  of  the  Protest¬ 
ant  Episcopal  Church,  under  which  I  am  acting,  wrote  to  Dr.  Ander¬ 
son, 'asking  him  whether  the  report  was  correct,  and  if  so,  upon  what 
authority  the  charges  were  made. 

Dr.  Anderson  replied  on  the  7th  Oct.,  in  a  letter  of  which  Mr. 
Irving  has  sent  me  a  copy.  In  this  letter.  Dr.  Anderson  says : 

“  In  my  remarks  concerning  Mr.  Badger,  wh»;ch  were  made  in 
reply  to  a  call  for  information  with  respect  to  his  proceedings,  I  in¬ 
timated  an  opinion  that  in  the  interference  with  our  labors  at  Constan¬ 
tinople,  he  was  not  the  principal  agent. 

“Dr.  Tappan  of  Maine  desired  to  know  to  what  other  adverse 
influence  I  referred. 

“To  this,  as  nearly  as  I  can  recollect,  I  replied,  that  as  no  harm 
could  come  from  the  truth,  I  would  frankly  say,  that  I  referred  to  the 
Rev.  Mr.  Southgate,  a  missionary  from  the  Episcopal  Church  of  this 
country.  Mr.  Southgate  had  unhappily  adopted  such  views  of  his 
duty,  that  he  felt  himself  at  liberty  to  co-operate  with  Mr.  Badger 
while  Mr.  B.  was  at  Constantinople,  and  had  acted  in  opposition  to 
our  missionaries,  and,  as  we  had  reason  to  believe,  was  the  chief 
cause  of  the  hostile  movement  which  had  constrained  Mr.  Dwight  to 


24 


suspend  for  a  season  his  meeting  for  preaching,  and  had  led  Mr.  Ho- 
hannes,  (then  present,)  to  come  to  this  country.” 

Dr.  Anderson  adds,  that  he  does  not  think  he  made  any  reference 
to  Papal  missionaries  when  speaking  of  me. 

This  report  of  Dr.  Anderson’s  remarks  from  his  own  hand,  renders 
it  unnecessary  to  make  any  farther  allusion  to  the  report  contained  in 
the  Evangelist. 

Referring,  then,  to  Dr.  Anderson’s  remarks  as  reported  by  himself, 
the  question  arises,  “  Whence  had  he  the  information  upon  which  he 
based  them  It  must,  of  course,  have  come  originally  from  Constan¬ 
tinople,  since  the  statement  made  refers  wholly  to  this  place,  and  to 
myself  as  resident  here,  and  you— the  members  of  the  mission — are 
the  missionaries  of  the  Board  in  this  city  and  the  persons  concerned 
in  the  remarks  that  were  made.  I  have  been  at  a  loss,  however,  to 
imagine  how  the  information  could  come  from  you,  because  I  had 
supposed  that  the  result  of  our  conference  more  than  a  year  ago  was 
such  as  to  preclude  such  a  charge  being  made  by  any  of  you  at  that 
time,  and  I  have  since  had  no  intimation  of  opposition,  from  you. 

It  is  necessary,  however,  for  the  clearing  up  of  the  matter,  that  I 
should  ascertain  distinctly  whether  the  charges  contained  in  those 
remarks  come  from  any  member  of  your  Mission.  These  charges  are 
three:  1.  That  I  have  co-operated  with  Mr.  Badger,  meaning,  of 
course,  in  opposition  to  your  operations,  since  no  other  co-operation 
could  be  a  subject  of  complaint  with  the  Board.  2.  That  I  have 
acted  in  opposition  to  you — the  missionaries  of  the  Board.  3.  That 
I  was  the  chief  cause  of  the  hostile  movement  which  led  to  the  sus¬ 
pension  of  Mr.  Dwight’s  meeting. 

^I  ask  now,  whether  these  charges  have  been  or  are  preferred  by 
your  Mission  or  members  of  your  Mission  in  this  city — and  if  so,  upon 
what  grounds  they  are  based. 

I  make  this  request  for  information  in  the  formal  performance  of 
duty,  and  not  because  I  any  way  doubt  that  the  answer  will  be  such 
as  will  allow,  what  I  sincerely  desire  and  pray  for,  the  maintenance 
of  peace  between  myself  and  missionaries  of  other  denominations. 

I  am,  Rev.  and  dear  Sir,  yours  very  sincerely, 

(Signed,)  Horatio  Southgate. 

After  a  week’s  delay,  the  following  answer  was  returned. 

(Copy.) 

Pera,  Constantinople,  Dec.  12,  1843. 

Rev.  Horatio  Southgate, 

Dear  Sir  : 

At  the  meeting  of  the  members  of  this  station  of  the  A.  B.  C.  F. 
M.,  appointed  to  be  held  this  afternoon,  your  letter  dated  Dec.  4, 
addressed  to  us  through  the  Rev.  Mr.  Goodell,  was  read.  In  this 


25 


letter,  after  having  referred  us  to  charges  concerning  yourself  made 
by  Rev.  Dr.  Anderson,  Sec.  of  the  A.  B.  C.  F.  M.,  at  the  last  annual 
meeting  of  that  Board,  you  add  that  you  wish  “  to  ascertain  distinctly 
whether  the  charges  contained  in  those  remarks  were  from  any  mem¬ 
ber  of  our  Mission.” 

As  Scribe  of  the  station,  I  have  been  instructed  to  communicate  to 
you,  that  w’e  see  no  propriety  in  its  being  implied  or  supposed,  that  we 
are  responsible  for  the  charges  made,  or  opinions  expressed  by  others, 
neither  do  we  feel  at  liberty  to  enter  into  any  explanation  upon  the 
subject, — until  we  are  referred  to  by  them  as  one  of  the  sources  of  any 
part  of  their  information ; — and  that,  in  that  event,  w’e  would  freely 
and  willingly  make  all  the  exposition  that  the  necessities  of  the  case 
might  require. 

It  must  be  obvious  that  in  every  thing  that  concerns  the  relations 
of  missionaries  in  these  days,  the  means  that  the  officers  of  the  Boards 
of  Missions  possess,  for  both  written  and  verbal  communications  with 
individuals  in  various  situations,  are  numerous.  We  think,  therefore, 
that  as  the  Secretary  of  our  Board  has  been  requested  by  the  Secretary 
of  the  Episcopal  Board,  to  say  “  upon  what  authority  the  charges 
were  made,”  we  are  justified  in  leaving  it  to  him  to  answer  the  same, 
if  he  has  not  already  done  so. 

I  have  been  requested  also  to  add  farther,  that  as  regards  what  you 
say  “you  had  supposed  as  the  results  of  our  conference,”  held  a  year 
since,  that  several  of  our  number  expressly  stated  to  you  at  the  time, 
that  we  w^ere  not  satisfied  with  the  explanations  which  you  then  made 
as  to  your  course. 

Praying  for  the  maintenance  of  peace  between  ourselves  and  mis¬ 
sionaries  of  other  denominations,  and  also  for  Christian  fellowship  in 
our  aims  and  labors, 

I  am.  Rev.  and  dear  Sir,  (in  behalf  of  the  Station,) 

Very  sincerely  yours, 

(Signed,)  H.  A.  Homes,  Scribe. 

I  can  truly  say  that  I  was  more  grieved  than  vexed  at  this  answer. 
It  betrayed  a  wmnt  of  ingenuousness  which  I  was  sorry  to  see.  I  had 
not  believed  that  the  report  on  which  the  charges  were  based,  had 
gone  from  these  missionaries.  It  did  not  seem  possible.  But  if  not 
from  them,  why  had  they  not  plainly  cltnied  it?  On  the  other  hand, 
by  declining  to  be  held  responsible  for  them,  and  intimating  that  they 
could  come  from  other  sources,  it  still  appeared  very  doubtful  whether 
they  w’ere  indeed  the  authors  of  them. 

I  answered  this  letter  ;  they  replied  ;  and  I  answered  again  ;  and 
there  the  correspondence  terminated.  As  it  is  not  material  to  the 
course  of  my  narrative,  I  have  thrown  these  last  three  letters  together 
into  an  Appendix,  to  which  I  beg  to  refer  you.  You  will  there  see 
that  no  satisfaction  was  offered  me  as  to  the  authorship  of  the  charges, 
and  that  the  correspondence  turned  mainly  upon  the  results  of  our  for- 


26 


mer  conference.  Thus  I  remained  in  the  dark,  as  to  the  source  of  the 
accusations,  until  a  few  weeks  ago,  when,  on  looking  over  the  reply 
of  the  missionaries  to  my  Vindication,”  which  reply  I  am  now  an¬ 
swering,  I  found,  in  the  Appendix,  a  letter  from  the  missionaries  to 
their  Secretary,  dated  Dec.  1,  1842,  nearly  two  months  after  our  con¬ 
ference,  after  every  thing  had  been,  to  my  fullest  conviction,  perfectly 
settled,  and  Mr.  Dwight’s  meeting  had  been  closed  and  opened  again. 
In  this  letter,  so  far  from  expressing  any  satisfaction,  they  blacken  my 
character  in  every  possible  way,  by  doubting  my  word,  misrepresent¬ 
ing  my  actions,  impeaching  my  motives,  and  imputing  to  me  doings 
which  I  now  hear  of  for  the  first  time.  And  how  has^this  letter  come 
out  ?  Why,  it  seems  from  the  Preface  to  the  missionaries’  Reply,  that 
when  my  Vindication  was  sent  to  them,  the  copy  was  deficient  in  the 
latter  part,  in  which  I  give  a  full  account  of  the  article  in  the  Her¬ 
ald,  the  reading  of  it,  and  the  settlement  of  the  whole  matter.  As  this 
part  was  wanting  when  the  missionaries  replied,  they  could  not  an¬ 
swer  it.  An  answer  is,  therefore,  furnished  by  the  Editor,  who  ob¬ 
tains,  from  the  Secretary  of  the  American  Board,  this  letter,  written 
by  the  missionaries  after  the  events  occurred,  and  inserts  it  in  the  Ap¬ 
pendix  as  the  reply  to  that  portion  of  my  pamphlet  which  was  want¬ 
ing.  Thus  the  whole  comes  out,  and  it  now  appears  whence  Dr.  An¬ 
derson  had  his  information  when  he  assailed  me  in  September,  1843, 
at  the  meeting  of  the  Board.  It  was  the  missionaries  themselves  who 
gave  this  utterly  distorted,  erroneous,  and  deeply  prejudiced  account  of 
the  reading  of  the  article  in  the  Herald,  our  conference,  and  my  own 
proceedings  thereupon.  And  when  they  wrote  to  me,  as  above-quot¬ 
ed,  a  year  afterwards,  declining  to  be  held  responsible  for  any  thing 
for  which  they  were  not  referred  to  as  authors,  and  indicating  that  in 
other  modes  such  information  might  reach  the  Secretary,  they  knew 
at  the  moment  that  the  accusations  came  altogether  from  them.  And 
here  they  are, — the  first  certain  intimation  that  I  have  had,  whence 
they  came, — contained  in  a  letter  written  by  the  missionaries  them¬ 
selves,  shortly  after  the  events  transpired.  If  it  had  been  declared  to 
me  at  the  time,  that  such  a  letter  had  been  written,  I  should  have  been 
almost  as  ready  to  believe  that  the  sun  were  shining  at  midnight,  as 
to  credit  the  declaration,  unless  confirmed  by  them.  It  is  one  of  the 
most  astonishing  things  in  the  whole  history  of  my  intercourse  with 
men. — But  I  forbear.  I  do  not  wish  to  speak  harshly  or  unkindly. 
But  henceforth  I  forsake  controversy,  and  retire  into  the  quietness  of 
my  own  labors  in  the  service  of  God.  Did  I  dream,  has  it  entered  my 
mind  to  imagine,  during  the  kind  and  courteous  intercourse  that  I 
had  with  the  missionaries  in  the  year  following  Dec.  1,  1842,  that 
such  a  letter  had  ever  been  written  ?  I  would  not  have  believed  it 
possible.  But  I  forgive  them,  from  my  heart  I  forgive  them  :  only  let 
us  cease  from  controversy. 

But  to  return  to  the  letter — the  letter  of  Dec.  1,  1842 — the  letter 
containing  that  sad  perversion  of  the  whole  truth  relating  to  the  affair 


27 


with  the  Armenians.  Mark  the  results  which  have  flowed  from  it. 
What  are  they  1  The  missionaries  write  it  to  Dr.  Anderson.  The 
next  year,  Sept.  1843,  he  bases  upon  it  an  open  assault  upon  me. 
This  is  published  in  the  papers.  Immediately  the  whole  Tso  called) 
religious  press  is  alive  with  it.  A  common  onset  is  made  upon  the 
Episcopal  Church  and  its  Missions.  Old  Instructions  are  raked  up, 
and  made  to  live  again  in  new  meanings.  The  story  of  theNestorian 
massacre,  as  brought  about  by  us,  is  invented.  It  is  preached  about  in 
pulpits,  and  told  through  the  land.  I  am  instructed  to  reply  to  these 
things.  I  do  it  in  my  recent  “  Vindication.”  And  now  the  mission¬ 
aries  appear  with  a  ‘  Reply  to  my  Charges  !’  If  this  is  not  the  most 
remarkable  instance  of  jumping  out  of  the  name  of  accuser  into  that 
of  defendant,  I  know  not  where  we  shall  look  for  its  parallel. 

But  to  the  letter  itself,  {Reply ,  pp.  31  et  seq.)  It  would  seem 
that  after  my  promise  to  acquaint  the  Armenians  with  the  missionaries’ 
explanation  of  the  article  in  the  Herald,  and  to  prevent  any  evil  arising 
from  it,  they  (the  missionaries)  were  led  to  suspect  that  I  was  playing 
false.  And  on  what  ground  did  they  suspect  it  ?  Why,  they  heard 
that  I  was  ^  commending  the  spirit  ’  of  the  men  who  had  most  violent¬ 
ly  opposed  them  on  the  ground  of  that  article,  that  I  was  ‘  in  frequent 
intercourse’  with  them,  and  that  I  conveyed  to  them  a  false  report  of 
what  was  said  at  our  conference.  {Reply,  p.  33.)  Now  if  the  mis¬ 
sionaries,  instead  of  entertaining  these  suspicions  upon  mere  native 
hearsay,  had  come  again  to  me,  I  could  at  once  have  satisfied  them 
on  all  these  points.  I  did  not  commend  the  violent  spirit  of  those  Ar¬ 
menians,  but  rebuked  it  plainly,  in  my  interview  with  them,  the  next 
day  after  the  conference  with  the  missionaries,  and  endeavored  most 
earnestly  to  soothe  and  quiet  them.  I  commended  only  one  thing, 
and  that  was  their  general  views  with  regard  to  the  evils  of  schism  in 
their  Church,  but  at  the  same  time  made  known  to  them,  in  the  fullest 
and  plainest  manner,  the  declaration  of  the  missionaries,  that  they  had 
no  intention  of  creating  a  schism,  and  entreated  them  to  believe  it.  I 
was  not  ‘  in  frequent  intercourse’  with  them  afterwards,  but  on  the  con¬ 
trary,  when  the  matter  was  once  settled,  my  intercourse  ceased  entirely 
with  all  but  one  of  them,  and  with  him  I  made  it  a  settled  rule  not  to 
converse  upon  the  past  or  the  doings  of  the  missionaries  at  all,  so  much 
so,  that  I  do  not  believe  the  subject  was  talked  upon  once  for  a  whole 
year  afterwards.  Whenever  he  referred  to  the  missionaries,  and  be¬ 
gan  to  speak  severely  of  them,  I  uniformly  checked  him  at  once,  and 
told  him  plainly  that  I  would  have  nothing  to  do  with  any  hostilities  to 
them.  By  pursuing  this  course  with  the  other  of  the  two  referred  to 
by  the  missionaries  as  the  most  bitter  against  them,  I  estranged  him 
from  me  entirely,  so  that,  excepting  one  or  two  formal  and  cold  visits 
from  him,  I  saw  nothing  of  him  for  a  year  afterwards,  and  then  only 
because  Dr.  Anderson’s  attack  upon  me  made  it  necessary  forme  to  go 
to  him  to  learn  his  recollection  of  the  settlement  of  the  matter  about 
the  article  in  the  Herald.  Since  that  time,  my  acquaintance  with  him 


28 


has  been  perfectly  free,  and  probably  will  so  remain.  Dr.  Anderson’s 
attack  has  brought  me  to  the  determination  to  have  no  reference  what¬ 
ever  to  the  missionaries,  in  my  intercourse  with  Armenians.  I  mean 
to  say,  that  I  will  not  avoid  a  man’s  acquaintance  merely  because  he 
is  hostile  to  the  missionaries. 

This,  however,  I  did,  for  the  whole  year  following  the  amicable 
settlement  of  our  affairs  in  the  conference  of  October,  1842.  I  actu¬ 
ally  declined  forming  acquaintance  with  Armenians  who  requested 
an  introduction  to  me, — on  the  ground  of  their  being  hostile  to  the 
missionaries  of  the  American  Board.  Soon  after  the  conference,  I 
was  informed  by  an  Armenian,  that  copies  of  the  Herald  were  in  the 
hands  of  another,  who  had  for  a  long  time  had  them  in  possession,  and 
that  he  intended  to  show  them  to  the  Patriarch.  I  interposed  to  pre¬ 
vent  it,  and,  through  my  informant,  who  refused  to  give  me  the  name 
of  the  individual,  succeeded  in  preventing  it.  Who  the  person  was, 
or  where  he  obtained  those  copies  of  the  Herald,  I  know  no  more 
than  the  missionaries  themselves.  They,  however,  know  that  such 
copies  are  to  be  found  in  Constantinople,  for  the  Roman  Catholics 
have  lately  quoted  largely  from  the  Herald,  in  two  or  three  pam¬ 
phlets  which  they  have  issued  against  the  missionaries.  Certainly 
no  copy  nor  part  of  a  copy  has  ever  gone  from  my  hands  or 
from  my  possession,  into  the  hands  of  any  man  in  those  countries. 
Furthermore,  not  long  after  our  conference,  it  came  to  my  know¬ 
ledge  that  a  conspiracy  of  a  very  formidable  character  was  form¬ 
ing  against  the  missionaries,  among  influential  Armenians.  I  took 
occasion  immediately  to  say  to  one  of  them,  that  if  it  was  not  at 
once  abandoned,  I  would  appear  in  open  opposition  to  it,  and  that 
I  felt  sure  that  my  influence  with  the  ecclesiastics  was  sufficient  to 
crush  it.  I  finally  succeeded  in  dissuading  this  person  from  it,  and 
in  inducing  him  to  use  his  efforts  to  prevent  it,  in  which  I  believe 
he  succeeded,  for  I  heard  no  more  of  the  conspiracy.  On  another 
occasion,  I  was  in  need  of  a  translator,  and  it  was  intimated  to  me 
that  one  in  the  service  of  the  missionaries  wished  to  leave  them.  I 
not  only  refused  to  employ  him,  but  forbad  my  informant  to  men¬ 
tion  to  him  that  I  was  in  want  of  a  translator,  lest  this  might 
induce  him  to  leave  with  the  hope  of  entering  my  service.*  So 
scrupulous  was  I  to  avoid  even  the  appearance  of  interfering  with 
the  affairs  of  the  missionaries.  On  another  occasion,  another  trans¬ 
lator  of  theirs,  (Panayotes,)  not  only  came  to  me  and  desired  to 
enter  my  service,  but  for  weeks  continued  to  importune  me.  I  de- 

^  I  afterwards  engaged  his  services,  and  he  was  with  me  three  days  in  a 
week,  for  six  months  before  Dr.  Anderson’s  attack  reached  Constantinople. 
During  all  this  time,  though  we  were  most  familiarly  together,  and  conversing  on 
every  variety  of  topic,  he  did  not  hear  me  utter  a  single  word  against  the  mission¬ 
aries  ;  while  he  did  hear  me  speak  of  them,  again  and  again,  in  terms  of  sincere 
kindness  and  affection.  I  engaged  his  services  after  he  had  left  the  employment 
of  the  missionaries,  (which  he  did  on  account  of  some  inconveniences  in  the  ar¬ 
rangement  of  his  work,)  and  when  he  was  seeking  for  other  business. 


29 


dined  his  offer,  in  part  on  the  express  ground,  as  stated  to  him,  that 
the  missionaries  might  think  1  had  enticed  him  away  ;  and  I  did  not 
wish  even  the  suspicion  of  such  a  thing  to  exist.  I  advised  him, 
therefore,  to  remain  with  them.  And  now  this  same  individual 
is  brought  forward  as  having  reported  to  them  various  things  as  said 
by  me,  indicative  of  opposition  to  them.  The  truth  is,  that  after  my 
repeated  rejection  of  his  services,  he  ceased  almost  entirely  to  visit 
me, — an  event  for  w^hich  I  was  sincerely  glad,  as  it  relieved  me  of 
his  importunities.  Is  it  possible  that  he  has  requited  me  by  bearing 
to  the  missionaries  tales,  which  they  unhappily  w’ere  but  too  ready 
to  receive  ?  Every  one  of  them  is  a  gross  misstatement,  and  only 
one  appears  to  me  w’orthy  of  notice.  It  seems  [Reply,  p.  38,)  that 
this  Greek  friend  reported  to  them  that  I  had  pronounced  ‘  some  of 
their  books  very  pernicious,’  and  one  in  particular,  on  justification  by 
faith.  'Now  this  last  was  the  only  one  of  their  books  which  1  ever 
objected  to,  in  conversation  with  this  Greek  ;  and  concerning  this,  I 
found  no  objection  to  any  thing  in  it  on  justification  by  faith,  but 
only  to  a  single  passage  relating  to  works,  in  which  passage  the  duty 
of  good  works  seemed  to  be  positively  denied.  I  told  the  Greek  that, 
while  faith  alone  saves,  it  must  be  a  living  faith,  producing  good 
fruits  to  the  glory  of  God.  If  he  made  any  other  representation  of 
my  remark,  he  misrepresented  it.  The  tract,  I  am  now  informed,  has 
been  altered  in  a  subsequent  edition,  so  as  to  avoid  the  very  excep¬ 
tionable  mode  of  statement  in  the  first. 

It  wmuld  be  worse  than  in  vain,  to  go  through  all  the  surmises  and 
rumors  and  false  constructions,  on  which  the  missionaries,  in  the  two 
or  three  letters  in  their  Appendix,  which  have  been  introduced  by  the 
Editor,  from  the  files  of  the  American  Board,  endeavor  to  make  out 
a  case  of  hostility.  They  are  all  as  easily  explained  and  set  aside  as 
that  just  given,  in  which,  by  the  way,  the  missionaries  pretend  to  find 
a  design  of  turning  the  Greek  away  from  them,  whereas,  I  had  not 
only  refused  to  take  him  out  of  their  employment,  but  had  advised  him 
to  remain  in  it,  and  in  mentioning  to  him  the  passage  just  referred  to, 
did  it  for  the  express  purpose  of  inducing  him  to  use  his  influence  with 
the  missionaries  to  prevent  such  statements.  And  that  same  Greek 
can,  if  he  will,  testify  wdth  how  much  kindness  and  tenderness  I  ever 
spoke  to  him  of  the  missionaries  themselves. 

The  missionaries  farther  doubted,  whether  I  had  been  sincere  with 
them  in  the  promise  made  at  the  conference,  because  one  of  the  Ar¬ 
menians  subsequently  told  them,  that  in  excusing  the  article  in  the 
Herald,  I  stated  that  the  missionaries  ‘were  sorry  for  it,  and  had 
written  it  under  excitement  and  passion.’  Now,  Mr.  Dwight,  the 
author  of  the  article,  did  say  to  me,  at  the  conference,  that  the  article 
was  written  ‘  under  exciting  circumstances,’  and  added,  ‘  I  would  not 
write  such  an  article  now ;’  and  Mr.  Goodell  said  that,  ‘  if  strictly 
weighed,  there  were  some  things  in  it  that  looked  objectionable.’ 
This  I  said  to  the  Armenians,  and  urged  it  sincerely  as  a  reason  for 


30 


not  judging  the  article  severely.  Furthermore,  the  Armenian,  it  seems, 
said  that  certain  portions  of  the  article,  which  appeared  contrary  to  the 
idea  of  a  schism  by  the  missionaries  themselves,  1  did  not  read  ;  and 
the  missionaries,  hearing  this  subsequently  to  the  conference,  went 
back  to  their  Ibrmer  impression,  that  I  had  read  it  for  the  purpose  of 
injuring  them.  Now,  again,  if  the  Armenian  said  this,  he  told  a  false¬ 
hood,  for  I  did  read  those  portions  of  the  article  distinctly,  and 
remember  it  well  to  this  day,  particularly  from  the  circumstance  of 
our  stopping  and  conversing  about  them.  Besides,  this  Armenian 
who  is  reported  as  saying  that  I  did  not  read  those  pans,  must  have 
been  the  one  to  whom  the  article  was  read.  Now  this  same  individ¬ 
ual  came  to  me  after  the  interview  with  one  of  the  missionaries  in 
which  these  parts  were  pointed  out  to  him,  and,  instead  of  telling  me 
that  any  such  portions  were  shown  him,  informed  me  that  the  mission¬ 
ary  (Mr.  D.)  declared  that  there  was  nothing  about  schism  in  the  ar¬ 
ticle,  that  he  then  proposed  to  Mr.  D.  to  have  the  whole  translated 
into  Armenian,  and  Mr.  D.  demurred.  What  now  does  all  this  show, 
but  the  injustice  of  taking  native  reports,  to  contradict  my  pledged 
W'ord  1  I  told  the  missionaries  that  I  w^ould  do  my  best  to  prevent  any 
injury  from  the  article.  Accordingly  I  did  go  to  the  excited  Arme¬ 
nians,  and  did  most  sincerely,  solemnly  and  faithfully  urge  them  to 
regard  it  as  if  it  had  never  been  written,  and  to  believe  the  word  of 
the  missionaries,  that  they  did  not  intend  a  schism.  I  succeeded  with 
them  entirely,  as  it  appeared  to  me.  I  supposed  the  whole  matter 
settled  and  the  missionaries  satisfied.  But  they,  taking  up  these  false 
reports  from  natives,  deemed  them  sufficient  to  overthrow  my  word, 
and  wrote  this  letter  to  their  secretary,  misinterpreting  every  thing, 
and  throwing  every  blame  that  a  perverted  construction  could  devise, 
upon  me.  He,  the  secretary,  thought  this  sufficient  ground  to  assail 
me  upon,  at  the  next  annual  meeting  of  the  Board,  and  from  that 
followed  all  this  controversy. 

And  now,  am  I  to  be  blamed  for  it  ?  He  who  knoweth  all  things 
knows  with  wffiat  sincerity  I  labored  to  efface  from  the  minds  of  the 
Armenians,  every  evil  impression  that  had  arisen  from  the  article,  and 
how  thereafter  I  kept  myself,  with  the  most  diligent  caution,  aloof 
from  every  thing  that  might,  in  any  w-ay,  be  interpreted  as  interfe¬ 
rence  with  the  missionaries  of  the  Board.  Oh,  they  have  utterly 
misread  my  heart  when  they  wrote  that  letter  to  the  Secretary.  But 
it  was  written ;  and  now  the  consequence  is,  that  since  the  attack  of 
Dr.  Anderson,  they  have  placed  me  in  a  position  which  otherwise  I 
might  never  have  occupied.^  It  is  not  a  position  of  hostility,  but  of 
indifference.  My  work  will  go  on,  as  if  their  owm  did  not  exist.  No 
one  is  to  be  avoided  because  he  is  their  enemy,  nor  wfill  his  acquaint¬ 
ance  be  received  for  any  such  reason.  The  full  agency  of  my  Church 

*  Various  things  said  by  the  missionaries  in  their  pamphlet,  refer  to  a  date 
later  than  thatofDr.  A.’s  attack.  But  let  me  remind  them,  that  nothing  subsequent 
to  that  date  can  be  allowed  to  enter  into  the  accounts  that  we  are  now  settling. 

C 


31 


will  be  carried  out,  as  if  they  were  not  in  the  field.  Controversy 
must  cease  here.  My  appointed  work  must  be  done,  without  any 
reference  to  theirs.  1  have  hitherto  worked  in  chains,  from  an  over¬ 
sensitive  desire  to  avoid  even  the  appearance  of  oflfence.  I  have 
now’  no  such  desire,  nor  do  I  desire  to  give  offence.  Past  experience 
has  taught  me  that  it  may  be  taken  without  being  given.  For  such 
taking  1  give  myself  no  uneasiness.  My  work  will  go  steadily  for¬ 
ward  without  regard  to  evil  surmises  or  evil  reports.  They  cannot 
affect  it  in  my  own  Church  ;  and  beyond  that,  I  must  cease  to  give 
myself  any  concern.  Kindness  and  gentleness,  forbearance  and  love, 
wull,  I  hope,  mark  its  course.  Sure  I  am,  it  shall  not  be  disgraced  by 
unfair  dealings  or  by  evil  speaking.  It  shall  not  be  engaged  in  any 
warfare  with  the  Missions  of  the  American  Board.  It  shall  do  its 
ow’n  w’ork,  wdth  its  owm  means,  and  in  its  own  w^ay;  and  others, 
doubtless,  will  do  the  same  with  theirs. 

I  am,  my  dear  friend,  yours  most  sincerely, 

Horatio  Southgate. 

JVeW’York,  Jan.  1,  1845. 


POSTSCRIPT. 

I  have  already  said  that  I  would  not  go  into  the  explanation  of  all 
the  minute  particulars,  in  the  way  of  surmises,  wrong  constructions 
and  false  inferences,  with  which  the  Reply  of  the  missionaries,  and 
still  more  their  private  letters  to  their  Secretary,  now  first  brought  to 
light  in  the  shape  of  an  Appendix  to  that  Reply,  abound.  They 
serve  to  show"  in  how  sensitive  and  suspicious  a  state  of  mind,  they 
have  viewed  my  acts  and  interpreted  my  motives.  I  cannot  think  that 
such  things  call  for  a  reply.  I  have  explained  enough  of  them  in  my 
Letter,  to  show’  how  unfounded  they  are,  and  farther  than  this  I  can 
hardly  make  up  my  mind  to  give  them  serious  attention.  They  are 
swept  aw’ay  and  disproved  by  the  whole  scope  of  the  argument ;  for 
if  what  I  have  said  be  true,  they  are  necessarily  false.  Yet  you  think 
that  there  remain  a  few,  that  it  may  be  worth  while  to  notice,  rather 
because  other  w"rong  inferences  may  be  made  from  my  silence,  than 
because  they  are  of  any  real  weight  in  themselves.  I  w"ill,  therefore, 
set  aside  tw’o  or  three  more  of  them,  and  there  wull  then  remain,  I  be¬ 
lieve,  nothing  which  any  candid  person  can  think  deserving  of  an  an¬ 
swer. 

The  first  which  I  notice,  is  on  p.  11.  The  missionaries  there  say, 
that  I  ‘  told  a  pious  native  friend  of  theirs,  that  I  sometimes  go  to  the 
Greek  Church,  and  make  the  sign  of  the  cross,  and  perform  the  other 
ceremonies  as  the  Greeks  do.’ — The  Italics  belong  to  the  mission¬ 
aries. — Again,  on  the  same  page,  they  say  that  ‘they  have  been  in-  * 
formed  more  than  once,  by  the  individuals  to  whom  I  gave  the  advice, 
that_I  have  instructed  the  people  to  obey  their  bishops  in  every  thing, 


32 


even  when  coinmanded  to  bow  down  before  'pictures^  and  pray  through 
the  intercession  of  the  Virgin  Mary  and  the  Saints.’  Here,  again, 
the  italics  belong  to  the  missionaries,  unless  they  are  the  work  of 
some  friendly  editor,  who  omitted  to  put  them  into  “  staring  capitals,” 
and  so  to  make  a  “  clinching  argument”  of  jt,  as  the  missionaries  say 
mine  were  intended  to  be. — But  what  is  it  to  “  perform  the  ceremonies 
just  as  the  Greeks  do?”  It  is,  when  you,  enter  a  Church,  to  buy  a 
taper  at  the  door,  and  light  it,  and  attach  it  before  some  picture.  It 
is  to  bow  down  before  the  picture,  cross  yourself  before  it,  and  kiss  it, 
— and  this  you  may  continue  to  do,  bowing,  crossing,  and  kissing,  for 
five  minutes,  or  a  quarter  of  an  hour.  I  do  not  say  that  all  the  Greeks 
do  this,  but  the  mass  of  uninstructed  Greeks  undoubtedly  do.  I  have 
seen  hundreds,  however,  who  do  it  not  at  all,  and  I  seldom  or  never 
saw  a  Greek  clergyman  do  it.  However,  this,  speaking  in  general, 
is  ‘  performing  the  ceremonies as  the  Greeks  do.’  Now,  of  course, 
the  missionaries  believe  that  I  do  this.  True,  I  am  a  clergyman  of  a 
Protestant  Church.  True,  I  receive  the  Thirty  Nine  Articles,  and  the 
tw'enty-secoiid  among  the  rest.  True,  I  glory  in  the  English  Reform¬ 
ation.  But  what  is  all  this  against  the  testimony  of  “  a  pious  native 
friend  V’  True,  they  never  saw  me  do  it ;  nor  do  they  pretend  that 
any  body  else  ever  saw  me  do  it,  not  even  their  “  pious  native  friend.” 
But  they  heard  him  say  that  he  heard  me  say  that  I  do  so  “  some¬ 
times.”  True,  1  am  under  most  solemn  ordination  vows,  which  utter¬ 
ly  forbid  my  doing  any  such  thing.  But  what  are  they  against  the 
word  of  “a  pious  native  friend  V’  Of  course,  the  missionaries  believe 
it.  And  why  should  they  not  ?  It  is  a  common  infirmity  of  our  hu¬ 
man  nature,  to  make  ourselves  a  standard  for  judging  others.  And  if 
the  missionaries  can  so  far  “  accommodate  themselves  to  the  sfreat 

o 

weakness  of  men,”  as  to  use  “  an  Episcopal  gown”  or  an  Episcopal 
liturgy,”  why  may  not  I  also  “  show  myself  immeasurably  exalted,” 
as  they  say,  above  all  the  littleness  of  mere  form  and  ceremony,”  by 
bowing  down  be^re  a  picture  or  lighting  a  taper  before  it  1  “  By  thus 
conforming  to  all  forms,”  “  I  pour  absolute  contempt  upon  them.” — 
But,  no.  Men  who  have  forms,  love  them,  and  are  disposed  to  cling 
to  them.  It  is  men  who  have  none,  who  are  in  the' fairest  way  to  be¬ 
come  latitudinarians  in  this  particular.  The  missionaries  might,  ac¬ 
cording  to  their  principles,  run  into  almost  any  extreme.  They  have 
only  to  satisfy  their  private  judgments  that  they  “innocently  can” 
bow  down  before  a  picture ;  and  this  also  might  be  done  upon  the 
principle  that  they  are  not  worshipping  it,  but  only  “  pouring  con¬ 
tempt”  upon  it.  But  I  am  bound,  by  positive  rules,  within  certain 
limits,  and  it  is  as  unlawful  for  me  to  transgress  on  the  one  side  as  on 
the  other.  I  need  not  add,  that  the  story  of  the  “  pious  native  friend” 
of  the  missionaries,  (who,  as  he  speaks  of  the  Greek  Church,  is  doubt¬ 
less  the  same  Panayotes  before  mentioned,)  is  a  fiction.  I  remember 
once  telling  him  that  I  had  no  objection  to  the  sign  of  the  cross,  if 
used  with  solemnity  and  devotion,  inasmuch  as  it  was  recognized  and 


33 


practiced  by  my  own  Church,  in  one  of  her  Sacraments ;  and  I  thought 
that  it  was  in  itself  an  impressive  confession  of  the  Christian  faith, 
especially  in  the  midst  of  Mussulmans  who  despise  it.  Out  of  this,  it 
would  seem,  he  fabricated,  or  the  missionaries,  misunderstanding  him, 
constructed  for  him,  the  story  in  the  pamphlet. 

So  of  the  other ;  only  a  little  worse ;  for  this  story  of  the  advice 
to  ‘  bow  down  before  pictures,’  &c.,  if  a  Bishop  commands  it,  was 
once  brought  to  my  notice  by  the  missionaries  themselves.  I  then, 
plainly  enough,  rectified  it.  And  now  they  bring  it  out,  without  a 
word  of  my  denial,  and  call  it,  with  the  other,  '•^painful  evidence”  of 
my  “  pleading  for”  and  “practicing”  the“  errors  of  those  Churches.” 
Doubtless  it  was  “painful”  for  them  to  say  such  things,  to  take  the 
word  of  a  native  or  two,  and  not  only  allow  it  to  set  mine  aside,  but 
also  to  lead  them  to  withhold  my  own  and  put  the  “  native”  testimo¬ 
ny  forth  in  undisputed  prominence.  Very  indeed.  Well, 

one  would  think  that  such  operations  must  be  “  painful.” — I  would  af¬ 
fectionately  remind  the  missionaries  of  a  process  of  their  own  com¬ 
mending,  which,  I  believe,  they  will  find  an  easier  one.  When  I  cor¬ 
rected  this  last  statement,  Mr.  Dwight  said,  “  Well,  now  you  see  how 
erroneous  things  may  be  said,  and  you  ought  to  be  careful  how  you 
credit  evil  reports  about  W5.” 

The  missionaries  say  again,  (p.  9,)  that  ‘  if  Episcopal  missiona¬ 
ries  preach  justification  hy  faith  alone  without  the  deeds  of  the  law, 
and  regeneration  properly  explained,  they  will  as  surely  and  speedily 
be  spurned  by  the  Eastern  Churches  as  any  of  their  Presbyterian  or 
Congregational  brethren.’  They  also  say,  (p.  10,)  that  the  ‘  tests  of 
orthodoxy  ’  in  those  Churches  are  such  things  as  ‘  one  or  two  natures 
in  Christ,’  ‘  leavened  or  unleavened  bread  in  the  Sacrament,’  ‘  the 
sign  of  the  cross  with  two  fingers,  three  fingers,  or  one  finger,’  the 
‘  intercession  of  Saints,’  ‘worship  of  pictures,’  &c.  Now  I  must  say  of 
this  whole  category  of  ‘  tests,’  that  never,  in  my  intercourse  with  the 
Eastern  Churches,  have  I  met  with  it,  excepting  the  first  point,  which 
is  matter  of  high  and  important  doctrine.  The  Syrian,  Armenian,  and 
Abyssinian  Churches  are  in  full  communion  with  each  other.  Yet 
they  differ  in  some  of  these  tests.  I  have  never  seen  an  Eastern  clergy¬ 
man  or  an  Eastern  layman  of  respectable  intelligence,  who  did  not 
regard  matters  of  faith  alone  as  tests  of  orthodoxy.  The  statement 
of  the  missionaries  is,  I  must  be  allowed  to  say,  a  caricature, — true 
only,  if  true  at  all,  of  the  lowest  and  most  unenlightened  of  the  laity. 
Of  the  Heads  of  those  Churches,  I  positively  know,  that  it  is  wholly 
false  ;  and  they,  not  the  most  ignorant  of  the  laity,  are  to  be  regarded 
as  uttering  the  voice  of  the  Church.  Why  should  we  speak  of  those 
Churches  in  any  other  than  terms  of  strict  accurateness  ?  Why  should 
we  say  of  them  here,  what  we  should  never  say  there  7 

And  so,  again,  of  ‘  justification  by  faith.’  If  I  ask  the  missionaries, 
which  is  the  most  corrupt  of  the  Eastern  Churches,  they  will  undoubt¬ 
edly  say,  the  Greek.  And  now,  if  they  can  show  me  a  clearer  or 

3 


34 


more  accurate  statement  of  this  precious  and  ever  blessed  doctrine — a 
doctrine  which,  with  my  whole  heart  and  soul,  I  cling  to,- as  the  life 
of  the  Christian,  the  very  basis  and  foundation  stone  of  all  sound  the¬ 
ology — if  they  can  show  me,  in  any  Protestant  standard,  a  more  full 
and  accurate  exposition  of  it  than  1  can  show  them  in  the  most  ap¬ 
proved  theology  of  the  Greek  Church,  I  have  yet  to  learn  where 
that  standard  is.^  True,  this  doctrine  is  overlaid,  in  practice,  by 
numerous  inventions  of  man.  True,  it  is  seldom  taught,  nor  is 
any  other  branch  of  theology  generally  taught,  with  clearness  and 
fidelity.  But  I  haVe  never  yet  seen  the  Eastern  Christian  who 
would  not  willingly  abide  by  the  standards  of  his  Church,  when 
pointed  out  to  him  ;  and  how^ever  this  is  a  mode  of  impressing 
truth  which  the  missionaries,  from  their  indifference  to  the  testi¬ 
monies  of  truth  in  the  Eastern  Churches  themselves,  little  care  for 
or  wot  of,  yet  I  know,  in  my  humble  experience,  that  nothing  is  so 
efficacious  to  carry  home  the  truth  to  the  heart  and  mind  and 
thence  into  the  life  of  an  Eastern  Christian,  as  this  same  appeal, 
where  it  can  be  made,  to  the  teaching  of  his  owm  Church.  I  never 
stated,  I  cannot  state,  the  great  doctrine  of  justification  by  faith  more 
clearly  or  more  strongly  than  I  have  stated  it  to  Oriental  ecclesias¬ 
tics,  and  I  never  yet  saw  the  man  who  would  not  at  least  acknow’- 
ledge  it  theoretically^  how’ever  little  he  seemed  to  lay  its  searching 
test  to  heart.  It  is  not  as  in  the  Church  of  Rome,  where  this  doctrine 
has  been,  authoritatively  and  by  Council,  set  aside,  for  so  I  consider 
the  Decrees  of  Trent,  taken  as  a  whole,  each  acting  upon  the  other, 
-to  have  done.  In  the  Eastern  Churches  it  has  never  been  contro¬ 
verted,  and  thus  their  standards  bear  a  glorious  testimony  to  it,  a  tes¬ 
timony  w-hich  I  trust  one  day  wall  be  light  and  life  to  them. 

The  missionaries  do  not  understand  the  power  of  a  formal  ecclesi¬ 
astical  recognition.  They  know  not  what  it  is  to  be  able  to  go  to 
the  Heads  of  the  Eastern  Churches,  and  show^  themselves  possessing 
the  great  features  of  a  Christian  Church,  as  those  communions  judge 
of  them,  and  must  judge  of  them  at  first  sight,  viz.,  the  outward  signs 
and  tokens  of  a  Christian  community.  They  know  not  the  power  for 
good  which  there  is  in  such  an  introduction.  They  know'  not  how  it  en¬ 
ables  one  to  be  received  in  something  like  an  authoritative  character,  and 
in  that  character  to  speak  of  the  true  faith  and  holy  living.  They  know’ 
not  how  it  strengthens  him  to  protest  against  error,  nor  how  he  can 

*  The  missionaries,  (p.  38,  Note,)  quote,  with  no  dissent,  apparently  with  ap¬ 
proval,  the  remark  of  their  Creek  friend,  in  which  he  asserted  the  doctrine  of 
justification  by  faith  to  be  the  doctrine  of  his  Cliurch.  They  will  not  say  it  is 
more  so  than  of  the  other  Eastern  Churches.  I  said,  in  the  conversation  alluded 
to,  “ 'riie  doctrine  of  a  dead  faith  is  no  doctrine  of  your  Church  or  of  mine.” 
“But,”  he  replied,  “  the  doctrine  of  justification  by  faith  is  a  doctrine  both  of 
your  Cliurch  and  mine.”  “Certainly,”  I. said,  “but  it  must  be  a  I ivhig  faith 
bringing  forth  good  fruits  to  the  glory  of  God.”  “Undoubtedly,”  he  replied; 
and  60  the  conversation  ended.  Did  he,  indeed,  so  grossly  misreport  me  as  the 
missionaries  say  ? 


35 


claim  to  be  heard  as  having  a  right  so  to  protest.  But  I  will 
say,  that,  with  Eastern  ecclesiastics  every  where,  I  have  found 
that  by  such  an  introduction,  and  by  that  alone,  I  could  effectually 
take  my  stand  against  errors  in  teaching  or  errors  in  practice ; 
and  the  discussions  which  I  have  had  upon  those  very  points 
which  the  missionaries  would  fain  show  me  as  patronizing,  have 
been  most  plain,  decided  and  faithful.  No,  I  stand  by  my  Church 
as  she  is.  I  glory  in  her  as  Reformed ;  I  rejoice  in  her  as  Primitive. 
I  recede  not  from  any  principle  of  the  Reformation.  I  mourn 
over  such  retrocessions.  It  had  its  frailties ;  as  what  work  in  human 
hands  has  not  its  frailties  ?  Did  not  the  work  of  the  blessed 
Apostles,  as  their  own  Epistles  testify,  have  its  frailties  also?* 
But  who  can  derogate  from  such  an  undertaking  because  every 
human  act  in  it  was  not  impeccable  ?  Let  us  wonder  rather,  and 
adore  the  goodness  of  God  to  His  Church,  that  it  exhibited  so 
little  of  what  was  blameworthy,  so  far  as  the  Church  was  con¬ 
cerned.  And  let  every  thought  of  depreciation  and  disparagement 
be  put  to  shame  by  the  glorious  results — the  Church  purified,  the 
ancient  faith  re-established,  the  Sacraments  restored  in  their  purity, 
and  faith  in  Christ,  and  love  working  from  faith,  made  again,  as  most 
certainly  they  were  in  olden  times,  the  acknowledged  source  of  life 
in  the  Church,  and  of  life  to  every  individual  believer. 

I  see  nothing  more  that  needs  a  notice,  unless  it  may  be  the  ex¬ 
traordinary  declaration,  on  the  28th  page  of  the  missionaries’  pam¬ 
phlet,  that  ‘  there  is  no  very  material  difference  between  the  Eastern 
Churches  and  the  Papal  Church.’  What  can  they  mean  ?  Is  the 
non-recognition  of  the  Papal  supremacy  no  material  difference,  nor 
the  rejection  of  Purgatory,  of  Communion  in  one  kind,  of  Clerical 
celibacy,  of  the  Apocrypha,  of  judicial  Absolution,  of  the  Worship  of 
Images,  and  even,  by  some  of  the  Eastern  Churches,  of  Pictures, — are 
these  not  ‘  material  V  And  yet,  these  are,  by  no  means,  all  the  dif¬ 
ferences.  The  Eastern  Churches  have  not  committed  themselves,  on 
the  doctrine  of  Justification,  nor  on  the  opere  operato  efficacy  of  the 
Sacraments,  nor  on  Transubstantiation,  as  the  Church  of  Rome  has 
done.  And  is  this  “  no  material  difference  ?”  Let  us  say  there  is  no 
life,  or  but  little  life ;  let  us  say  that  the  truth  as  it  is  in  Jesus,  is  very 
imperfectly  taught ;  let  us  say  that  formalism  has  crept  in  and  eaten 
out  the  heart  of  piety ;  let  us  say  that  the  Sacraments  are  often,  or 
generally,  very  perfunctorily  administered  and  received ;  let  us  say 
that  the  blessed  doctrines  of  the  Gospel,  in  their  spirit  and  power  and 
life-giving  efficacy,  are  not  always,  nor  widely  preached  j  let  us  say 
that  various  corruptions  and  superstitions  have  supervened  upon  the 
original  structure  of  Christianity  ;  but  let  us  not,  in  charity  and  truth, 
let  us  not,  say  that  there  is  still  ‘  no  material  difference  between  the  Ori¬ 
ental  Churches  and  the  Communion  of  Rome.’  Let  justice  prevail,  truth 

*  See,  for  example,  such  passages  as  Acts  xv.  37-39,  and  Gal.  ii.  ll-l-l. 


36 


$ 

be  spoken,  faithfulness  be  shown,  and  love  be  exercised.  Let  us  think 
of  our  brethren  as  they  are,  speak  of  them  as  they  are,  and  treat  them 
as  they  are,  remembering  ourselves  the  ‘  hole  of  the  pit  whence  we  have 
been  digged,’  and  the  tender  mercies  of  our  God  towards  us,  that  as  ‘  He 
has  loved  us  and  laid  down  His  life  for  us,’  so  we  should  love  and  ‘  lay 
down  our  lives  for  our  brethren.’  Let  us  approach  them  with  fidelity, 
yet  with  gentleness  ;  with  truth,  yet  with  compassion  ;  with  fearless¬ 
ness,  yet  with  meekness ;  and  the  Lord  will  bless  and  ‘  establish  the 
work  of  our  hands  upon  us,  yea,  the  work  of  our  hands  He  will  estab¬ 
lish  it.’ 

But  I  have  done.  There  are  several  minor  points,  such  as  ‘  turn¬ 
ing  away  Armenians  from  them,’  (p.  25,)  using  my  influence  against 
them  with  the  Patriarchs,  (p.  21,  note,)  &c.,  which  are  virtually  dis¬ 
proved  in  the  body  of  my  letter.  There  is  an  allusion  to  a  ‘  Frank’ 
who  spoke  against  them  in  the  bazars,  (p.  32,)  and  it  looks  as  if  they 
supposed  it  was  I.  I  can  only  say,  it  was  not  I.  They  speak  (p.  33) 
of  the  article  in  the  Herald  having  been  known  to  me  long  before  it 
was  read  to  an  Armenian,  of  its  having  been  brought  forward  in  our 
first  conference  in  1842,  by  Dr.  Robertson,  and  ‘  explained  apparently 
to  our  satisfaction.’  But  they  forget  to  add,  that  1  said  I  did  not  be¬ 
lieve  that  this  was  the  article  brought  forward  by  Dr.  R.,  or  if  it  had 
been  referred  to  by  him,  it  was  without  any  concert  with  me ;  that  it 
might  have  been  so  alluded  to  by  him,  at  our  first  conference  in  ’42, 
but  if  it  was,  I  w^as  giving  no  attention  at  the  moment  to  what  was 
going  on,  and  did  not  know  of  it ;  that  when  I  saw  it,  a  few  days 
before  reading  it  to  the  Armenian,  it  was  entirely  new  to  me,  and 
I  firmly  believe  and  am  perfectly  certain  that  I  never  saw  it  before. 
Now  the  missionaries  omit  all  this  in  their  letter  to  their  Secretary, 
of  Dec.  1,  1842.  What  wonder,  then,  he  thought  he  had  sufficient 
ground  to  attack  me  upon  ? 

But  enough.  When  the  missionaries,  at  my  conference  with  them, 
Oct.  1842,  seemed  at  first  disposed  to  regard  me  with  distrust,  I  said 
to  them,  “You  appear  to  be  in  a  suspicious  state  of  mind  towards  me. 
W^hy  is  this?”  Mr,  Dwight  replied, that  ‘  my  church  had  been  getting 
so  high  and  exclusive  of  late,  that  they  did  not  know  but  that  1  might 
have  imbibed  the  same  feelings.’  I  replied,  that  ‘  I  wished  to  be 
judged  by  what  I  am,  and  by  what  I  profess.’  And  so  it  is  now. 
When  1  declare  myself  \ios\S\e.  to  them  and  determined  to  oppose  them, 
they  will  know  it  to  be  so.  Until  then,  they  may  deal  in  vague  con¬ 
jectures,  but  I  cannot  answer  them;  they  may  suspect,  but  their  sus¬ 
picions  will  be  groundless ;  they  may  misinterpret,  but  I  cannot  turn 
aside  to  correct  every  misinterpretation;  they  may  send  home  una- 
miable  reports,  but  I  cannot  reply  to  them.  My  work  must  be  in 
peace,  not  in  strife.  My  mind  and  my  body  must  be  occupied  in 
higher  duties  than  controversy.  I  find  my  time  short  enough  for  more 
serious  concerns,  and  my  spirit  worldly  and  weak  enough  to  need  a 
more  spiritual  aliment.  I  have  no  heart  for  strife ;  nor  do  I  think  it 


37 


becomes  the  office  to  which  my  Church,  and,  I  trust,  my  God  has 
called  me.  That  office  I  have  solemnly  vowed  to  exercise  in  the 
maintaining  and  setting  forward,  as  much  as  shall  lie  in  me,  quiet¬ 
ness,  love,  and  peace  among  all  men and  ray  earnest  desire,  my 
daily  prayer  is,  that  I  may  be  faithful  to  the  vows  that  I  have  taken 
upon  me,  and  seriously,  soberly,  and  righteously  do  my  appointed 
work. 

Again,  adieu, 

H.  S. 


APPENDIX. 


CONTINUATION  OF  THE  CORRESPONDENCE  CITED  ON  PP.  93,  24. 


Rev.  H.  A.  Homes,  Scribe  of  the  Mission  of  the  A.  B.  C.  F.  M.  at  Constantinople. 
Dear  Sir  : 

In  answer  to  your  note  of  yesterday,  I  beg  to  say,  that  of  no  past  event 
is  my  recollection  more  distinct  and  complete,  than  of  the  satisfaction  which 
was  expressed  by  several  members  of  the  Mission  of  the  A.  B.  C.  F.  M.. 
(during  my  conference  with  them  a  year  ago,)  as  to  the  point  which  was  the 
subject  matter  of  that  conference,  viz.,  my  motive  and  intention  in  showing 
an  Article  in  the  Missionary  Herald  to  an  Armenian.  This  satisfaction  was 
apparently  concurred  in  by  all,  and  a/ few  days  after,  you  yourself  declared 
to  me,  in  my  house,  that  “  the  brethren  were  gratified  with  the  results  of  the 
conference.”  From  that  time  to  the  present,  I  have  had  no  intimation  to  the 
contrary  from  any  member  of  the  Mission,  unless  the  expression  in  your  note 
of  last  evening  is  to  be  so  interpreted. 

If  there  is  any  doubt  remaining  on  this  point,  I  will,  upon  its  being  made 
known  to  me,  undertake  to  make  the  matter  clear  in  a  manner  that  will  place 
my  motive  beyond  question.  For  this  purpose,  however,  it  will  be  neces¬ 
sary  to  revive  the  subject  among  the  Armenians. 

As  to  my  general  views  and  course,  (which  were  made,  farther  perhaps 
than  propriety  warranted,  the  subject  of  a  desultory  conversation  at  the  con¬ 
ference,)  it  could  never  enter  my  mind  to  seek  for  them,  the  approbation  of 
any  others  on  earth  than  the  Committee  or  the  Church  to  which  I  am  re¬ 
sponsible. 

The  only  overt  act  alleged  by  Dr.  Anderson,  in  his  remarks  at  the  meet¬ 
ing  of  the  Board,  was  the  suspension  of  Mr.  Dwight’s  services,  and  the  only 
agency  imputed  to  me  in  that  matter,  was  the  showing  the  article  alluded  to. 
Upon  this  point,  (the  question  being  whether  I  did  it  from  any  evil  or  hos¬ 
tile  motive,)  I  distinctly  understood  the  members^  of  the  Mission  present  at 
the  conference,  to  express  their  entire  satisfaction.  It  was  with  this  under¬ 
standing  alone,  that  I  consented  to  act  as  a  mediator  between  your  Mission 
and  the  Armenians,  which  I  evidently  could  not  have  done,  if  I  had  not  been 
assured  that  you  were  yourselves  satisfied  upon  the  question  of  my  inten¬ 
tions.  It  was,  indeed,  in  answer  to  an  assurance  of  this  kind  from  Mr. 
Dwight,  that  I  undertook  the  office.  Mr.  D.  said,  “I  believe  you,  I  am 
satisfied  that  you  had  no  intention  to  injure  us,  and,  therefore,  I  think  that  you 
ought  to  do  all  in  your  power  to  prevent  the  evil  consequences.”  I  declared 
my  readiness  to  do  so,  and  the  mode  of  acting  was  then  pointed  out,  to  which 
I  assented.  If  there  are  any  other  charges  of  hostility  or  interference,  I  will 
undertake  to  meet  them  when  they  are  specified,  and  I  farther  pledge  myself 
to  show  repeated  instances,  in  the  course  of  the  past  year,  in  which,  unknown 


^  [Messrs.  Goodell,  Schauffler,  Dwight,  and  Homes. — H.  S.] 


39 


to  you,  I  have  saveJ  your  Mission  from  disasters  far  more  serious  than 
the  suspension  of  a  meeting  for  a  few  weeks. 

As  to  Hohannes  being  “led”  or  “driven”  to  America,  I  am  surprised 
that  the  Report  of  the  Board  (Abstract)  should  speak  of  that  as  a  “perse¬ 
cution”  which  was  lo  him  a  consummation  most  earnestly  desired,  in  which 
he  had  repeatedly  begged  me  to  assist  him. 

Permit  me  to  add,  that  the  only  motive  of  my  former  communication  to 
Mr.  Goodell,  was,  to  take  a  step  towards  bringing  out  clearly  my  position, 
which  is  to  represent  my  own  Church,  and  do  the  work  committed  to  me, 
without  assuming  hostility  towards,  or  speaking  evil  of.  the  missionaries  of 
other  denominations.  I  have  taken  this  position  solely  from  the  conviction, 
(to  which  I  have  been  led  by  earnest  prayer  and  reflection,)  that  it  can  only 
be,  under  common  circumstances,  a  detriment  to  the  cause  of  our  Blessed 
Saviour,  to  present  to  the  Eastern  Christians,  a  spectacle  of  strife  and  con- 
tenlion. 

Having  assumed  this  position,  I  shall  not  abandon  it  for  any  less  cause 
than  that  which  induced  me  to  take  it.  When  the  interests  of  the  Redeem¬ 
er’s  kingdom  appear  to  me  to  be  receiving  injury  from  any  act  of  yours  or 
of  others,  I  trust  that  I  shall  not  hesitate  to  use  my  utmost  influence  to  avmrt 
the  evil,  and,  in  such  case,  I  would  know  no  diflerence,  unless  it  might  be  in 
the  particular  mode  of  proceeding,  between  a  missionary  of  my  own  Church 
and  another.  But  that  I  do  pot  mean  to  be  drawn  inio  any  opposition  by 
merely  personal  motives,  is,  I  think,  sufliciently  apparent  from  the  fact  that  I 
have  already  passed  over  in  silence  many  things  concerning  myself  and  my 
Church,  reported  to  me  as  coming  from  members  of  the  Missions  of  the  A. 
B.  C.  F.  M.  in  this  city  and  in  other  places.  Out  of  the  things  thus  report¬ 
ed,  I  could,  were  it  consistent  with  decent  self-respect,  not  to  say  with  the 
principle  that  1  have  adopted,  frame  a  series  of  charges,  as  severe,  perhaps, 
as  any  that  were  ever  presented  to  a  Missionary  Society. 

A  more  direct,  may  I  not  justly  say,  a  more  frank  and  open  answer  to  my 
communication,  might  have  enabled  me  to  show  my  position  more  distinctly. 
I  cannot  countit  my  loss  alone  that  it  has  not  been  shown,  but  it  may  be  a 
loss  to  the  cause  of  Christ,  and  so  far  it  is  a  loss  both  to  you  and  me. 

Your  answer  precludes  the  necessity  of  farther  communication  upon  the 
subject  of  the  charges,  and  I  can  see  no  propriety  or  utility  in  repealing  a 
request  to  Dr.  Anderson  which  has  once  been  made  to  him  in  vain.^  Such 
other  measures  as  the  case  seems  to  me  to  demand,  I  shall,  of  course,  adopt, 
and  while  I  believe  that  you  will  find  them,  if  they  should  ever  come  to 
your  knowledge,  in  strict  conformity  with  the  principle  that  I  have  avowed, 
1  would  now  repeat  my  earnest  desire,  not  for  myself,  but  for  Christ’s  sake, 
that  peace,  charity,  and  kindly  speaking,  (of  all  things  most  conducive  lo 
“  Christian  fellowship,”)  may  characterize  both  our  personal  intercourse  and 
our  private  conduct  towards  each  other. 

Believe  me,  with  sincerest  regards,  yours,  dear  sir,  very  truly, 

(Signed)  HORATIO  SOUTHGATE. 

Wednesday  evening,  December  1.3,  1843. 

P.  S.  In  saying  above,  that  “your  answer  precludes  the  necessity  of 
farther  communication  upon  the  subject  of  the  charges,”  I  wish  to  be  under¬ 
stood  as  speaking  of  the  question  of  their  origin.  So  far  as  I  am  personally 

*  [The  missionaries,  in  a  letter  to  their  Secretary,  dated  Feb  7, 1844,  and  given 
in  the  Appendix  to  their  pamphlet,  say,  as  a  reason  for  not  informing  me  wliether 
Dr.  Anderson’s  charges  came  from  them,  that  “for  aught  they  knew  to  the  con¬ 
trary,  he  (Dr.  A  )  had  made  known  the  grounds  on  whicli  the  charges  had  been 
made.”  It  is  liere  implied  (and  in  my  next  letter,  of  Dec.  18th,  it  is  distinct 
ly  stated)  that  Dr.  A.  had  not  complied  with  the  demand  made  upon  him  for  his 
authority. — H.  S] 


40 


concerned,  my  object  is  virtually  as  much  answered  by  no  one’s  taking  upon 
himself  the  responsibility  of  their  parentage,  as  it  would  have  been  by  a  fair 
and  open  assumption  of  it.  But  as  far  as  relates  to  the  satisfaction  or  dis¬ 
satisfaction  of  the  members  of  your  Mission  upon  the  point  which  was  the 
occasion  of  our  conference  a  year  ago,  I  do  expect  a  plain  and  unequivocal 
answer.  This  is  the  only  point  open  between  us,  and  the  only  point  on 
which  your  Secretary  has  based  a  specific  charge.  Upon  this  point,  there¬ 
fore,  I  ask,  whether  the  members  of  your  Mission  were  satisfied  or  dissatis¬ 
fied  with  my  explanation,  and  1  make  this  request  on  the  ground  that  the  de¬ 
claration  in  your  letter  may  be  interpreted  as  throwing  a  doubt  upon  it.  If 
there  are  any  other  charges,  (which  must,  of  course,  be  confined  to  acts  of 
■hostility  or  interference  with  you.)  I  ask,  either  to  know  them,  or  that  they 
cease  hereafter  to  be  preferred  in  any  manner,  secret  or  open.  All  this,  I 
think  you  will  see  at  once  to  be  a  fair  Christian  right,  and  as  such  you  will 
cheerfully  grant  it. 


Constantinople^  December  16,  1843. 

Rev.  Horatio  Southgate — 

Dear  Sir: 

I  am  directed  by  the  members  of  the  station,  to  acknowledge  the  receipt 
of  your  letter  of  December  13,  in  answer  to  theirs  of  December  12. 

We  wonder  that  you  should  have  had  any  “  doubt”  as  to  what  “  interpre¬ 
tation”  to  put  upon  our  expressions  in  that  letter,  of  dissatisfaction  with  your 
previous  explanations.  The  assertion  we  there  made,  and  which  we  now 
repeat,  “that  we  were  not  satisfied  with  the  explanations  which  you  then 
made  as  to  your  course,”  is,  we  think,  as  plain  as  language  can  make  it. 
This  want  of  satisfaction  refers  in  general  to  the  whole  range  of  topics  upon 
which  we  then  conversed.  We  did  indeed  at  the  time  (and  as  you  also  say) 
express  a  satisfaction,  but  it  was  with  one  of  the  results  of  that  conference, 
inasmuch  as  you  then  promised  to  do  what  you  could  to  disabuse  the  minds 
of  certain  Armenians,  that  had  been  prejudiced  by  hearing  the  disjointed  ex¬ 
tracts  which  you  had  read  to  them  from  the  Missionary  Herald.  It  was  not 
understood,  however,  in  this  agreement  of  yours,  that  you  was  to  become  a 
“mediator,”  as  you  term  it,  between  us  and  them,  but  that  you  consented  to 
perform  an  act  of  reparation  for  an  injury  which  had  resulted  from  your  own 
act,  and  which  we  hoped  also  you  might  regard  as  a  Christian  duty. 

We  feel  constrained  in  addition  to  the  above,  to  make  several  distinct  de¬ 
clarations  in  reference  to  sentiments  found  in  your  letter.  And  the  first  is, 
that  we  have  never  imagined  or  implied  that  you  were  hostile  to  us  person¬ 
ally ;  nor  have  we  cherished  any  feelings  of  hostility  to  you  personally,  al¬ 
though  much  in  your  letter  seems  to  have  been  written  under  that  impres¬ 
sion.  And  we  may  add,  we  have  not  given  in  any  quarter  even  an  ^inti¬ 
mation  of  opposition”  to  your  own  labors,  unless  they  unfortunately  seemed 
(even  if  without  cause)  to  be  hindering  the  labors  of  Evangelical  Mission¬ 
aries  or  other  evangelical  Christians  in  these  lands. 

Our  second  declaration  is,  that  we  do  not  wish  to  impugn  or  judge  your 
“  motives'’’  in  any  line  of  conduct  you  may  have  marked  out  for  yourself,  or 
have  actually  followed.  Nor  do  we  deny  that  you  conscientiously  adhere  in 
that  line  of  conduct,  to  what  you  may  consider  as  your  duty  to  the  Church 
of  Christ,  or  to  your  “position”  in  your  own  Church.  We  do  and  shall  only 
take  notice  of  such  events  as  affect  our  sphere  of  labors,  according  as  they 
come  within  our  knowledge  ;  and  must  leave  it  to  others,  who  may  also  be¬ 
come  acquainted  with  the  same  events,  to  judge  of  the  motives  whence  they 
had  their  rise. 

And  lastly,  we  must  remark,  that  should  the  principles  you  avow,  of  hold- 


41 


jng  yourself  always  ready  to  “use  your  utmost  influence  to  avert”  any  evil 
which  you  may  fancy  our  doings  may  threaten  to  the  “  interests  of  the  Re¬ 
deemer’s  kingdom,”  lead  you  any  time  to  any  acts  of  interference  with  our 
labors,  we  shall  feel  fully  authorized  to  report  to  our  Society  all  such  pro¬ 
ceedings.  Nor  do  we  feel  that  in  such  a  case,  any  “fair  Christian  right,” 
calls  upon  us  to  communicate  to  you  our  intention  of  doing  so;  or  justifies 
you  in  demanding  of  us  “  to  cease  to  prefer”  “  such  charges”  “in  any  man¬ 
ner,  secret  or  open.”  You  could  not  fairly  impeach  our  conduct  in  making 
such  reports ;  for  we  are  fully  as  willing  to  have  this  rule  applied  to  us,  as 
we  are  to  apply  it  to  others. 

In  conclusion,  we  confidently  and  fearlessly  appeal  to  you  to  communi¬ 
cate  to  us,  or  to  the  public,  any  of  the  “many  things  concerning  your  church 
or  3'ourself,  reported  to  you  as  coming  from  members  of  the  Mission  of  the 
A.  B.  C.  F.  M.  in  this  city,'^’  and  which  you  have  any  evidence  to  believe 
were  indeed  uttered  by  us.  And  we  trust  that  from  the  answer  we  should 
make,  all  would  be  satisfied,  that  we  have  said  nothing  of  which  you  could 
not  speak  with  “  decent  self-respect,”  or  which  you  could  reasonably  con¬ 
demn. 

It  seems  to  us,  that  if,  as  is  the  fact,  Mr.  Hohannes  through  a  threatened 
“persecution”  obtained  the  “ consummation  earnestly  desired”  by  him  of 
going  to  America,  it  is  not  surprising  that  the  thing  should  be  spoken  of  by 
its  right  name.  Paul  had  for  a  long  lime  earnestly,  but  in  vain,  desired  to 
see  Rome,  and  at  last  his  desire  was  accomplished.  Yet  no  one  conceals 
the  fact  under  any  softer  language,  than  to  say  that  he  went  a  prisoner  in 
bonds. 

We  see  no  occasion  for  continuing  this  correspondence  farther.  Our 
only  reason  for  writing  as  much  as  the  above  has  been  to  give  the  “plain 
and  unequivocal”  answer  which  you  requested,  “  as  to  the  satisfaction  or 
dissatisfaction  of  the  members  of  our  station  on  the  point  which  was  the  oc¬ 
casion  of  our  conference  a  year  ago:”  and  then,  for  our  own  sakes,  briefly 
to  throw  otf  as  far  as  our  simple  denial  can  avail,  the  imputations  contained 
in  your  letter  of  personal  hostility  to  you,  or  of  inisjudgmentof  your  motives. 

Praying  that  we  may  grow  in  grace  and  in  the  knowledge  of  our  Lord 
and  Saviour  Jesus  Christ, 

I  remain,  my  dear  sir. 

In  behalf  of  our  Station, 

Very  cordially  yours, 

(Signed)  HENRY  A.  HOMES, 

Scribe  of  the  Station. 

P.  S.  I  would  add  here  in  my  own  behalf,  in  reference  to  the  use  you 
make  of  a  sentiment  which  you  allege  that  I  expressed  in  your  own  house, 
that  the  explicit  object  of  my  visit  to  you  at  that  time  was  that  I  might  ob¬ 
tain  better  satisfaction  as  to  how  you  came  to  show  the  copy  of  the  Herald, 
and  that  I  told  you,  that  after  all  that  had  been  said,  it  seemed  to  me  to  be 
an  inexplicable  thing. 

Mr.  Dwight  requests  me  also  to  add  for  him,  that  whatever  he  may  have 
said  at  that  conference  conditionally  or  directly  expressing  satisfaction  on 
any  point,  yet  still  he  expressly  stated  his  c/issatisfaction  with  the  reasons 
you  offered  for  showing  the  Herald.  H.  A.  H. 

Pern,  December  18,  1843. 

Rev.  H.  A.  Homes,  Scribe  of  the  Mission  of  the  A.  B.  C.  F.  M.,  Constanti¬ 
nople. 

My  Dear  Sir  : 

I  have  thought  much  upon  the  subject  of  our  correspondence  since  I  re¬ 
ceived  your  letter  of  the  16th,  and  particularly  upon  the  point  whether  I 


42 


should  desire  a  conference  with  the  members  of  your  Mission.^  It  seems  to 
me,  however,  that  I  ou^ht,  injustice  both  to  you  and  to  myself,  to  put  down 
in  writing  the  foliowiny  statement : 

1.  That  nothing  is  farther  from  my  thoughts  than  to  believe  that  you  are 
influenced  by  feelings  of  “  personal  hostility”  to  me.  I  do  not  believe  it.  I 
believe  that  whatever  you  have  done  or  may  do,  has  arisen,  or  will  arise, 
from  a  conviction  of  duty  to  interests  far  higher  than  “personal,”  the  inter¬ 
ests  of  Christ’s  kingdom  ;  and  that  to  me  personally  and  privately  your  feel¬ 
ings  are  perfectly  kind  and  Christian.  Such  are  also  my  feelings  towards 
you.  as  all  who  hear  me  speak  of  you  in  my  most  private  conversations,  can 
testify. 

2.  That  I  did  not  mean  to  ask,  whether  you  were  satisfied  with  my  ^•rea¬ 
sons’''  for  reading  the  article  in  the  Herald  to  an  .Armenian,  (by  the  way,  I 
read  the  whole,  and  not  “disjointed  extracts,”)  but  whether  you  were  satis¬ 
fied  that  my  motive — my  feeling  towards  you  therein,  was  not  to  injure  or 
oppose  you.  1  remember  very  well  Mr.  Dwight’s  saying  in  our  conference, 
that  he  did  not  think  the  reasons  which  I  gave,  sufficient  to  warrant  my 
reading  the  article ;  but  he  also  said,  in  so  many  words,  apparently  concur¬ 
red  in  by  all,  that  he  believed  my  solemn  declaration  that  I  had  no  hostile 
motive  towards  you  in  doing  it.  The  reasons  stated  for  my  reading  the  ar¬ 
ticle,  may  not  have  seemed  to  you  such  as  ought  to  have  induced  me  to  read 
it,  and  yet  you  might  acquit  me  of  any  hostile  intention  therein  ;  which  was 
actually  the  course  the  matter  took  at  the  conference.  I  also  believed  Mr. 
Dwight’s  declaration,  when  he  said,  that  he  had  no  intention  of  creating  a 
schism  in  the  Armenian  Church,  but  I  did  not  thereby  say  that  I  thought  the 
reasons  which  he  gave  for  writing  that  article  sufficient  to  warrant  its  being 
written. 

3.  I  did  not  mean  to  ask,  that  before  reports  concerning  me  or  my  work 
are  sent  home,  they  should  first  be  communicated  to  me.  What  I  asked 
was  this — that  all  charges,  (if  any  existed,)  relating  to  the  past,  should  now 
be  brought  forward  and  settled,  or  if  you  should  not  think  it  worth  while  to 
do  this,  that  they  should  “cease  to  be  preferred.”  I  wished  merely  to  settle 
every  thing  that  had  past. 

N  4.  I  do  not  think  that  we  are  bound,  in  reporting  home  with  regard  to  the 
doings  of  others,  to  institute  first  an  inquiry  concerning  motives,  but  I  am 
sure  you  will  agree  with  me,  that  when  we  happen  to  have  received  a  solemn 
and  express  declaration  of  innocence  of  motive,  it  is  but  fair  to  mention  it  in 
our  reports,  and  if  there  has  been  an  effort  to  prevent  or  repair  injury  aris¬ 
ing  from  an  act,  we  ought  also  to  mention  that.  This  is  but  obeying  the 
Saviour’s  golden  rule. 

5.  I  have  always  supposed  that  your  Mission  reported  to  the  Committee 
the  suspension  of  Mr.  Dwight’s  meeting  and  the  cause.  This  would  be  a 
matter  of  course.  But  I  also  supposed  that  the  report  must  have  contained 
a  fair  statement  of  my  declaration  and  of  my  effort  to  prevent  injury.  I 
never  doubted  that  it  did  contain  such  a  statement.  If  so,  how  could  Dr. 
Anderson  make  a  public  charge  against  me,  of  being  the  chief  cause  of  the 
suspension  of  the  meeting,  without  alluding  to  these  qualifying  circumstan¬ 
ces  I  could  only  account  for  it  by  supposing  that  he  had  heard  other  re- 

'  [Th  is  allusion  to  a  conference  arises  from  the  fact,  that,  after  sending  his 
letter  of  Dec.  16th,  Mr.  Hornes  called  upon  me,  and  in  a  friendly  conversation 
which  occurred,  suggested  that,  instead  of  continuing  the  correspondence  farther, 
we  should  have  a  conference.  It  was  happy  that  we  did  not,  for  the  result  of 
the  other  now  appears  to  have  been  a  little  worse  than  nothing. — H.  S.] 

2  [In  their  letter  to  their  secretary,  of  Feb.  7,  1844,  before  alluded  to,  the  mis¬ 
sionaries  remark,  upon  this  passage  of  my  letter,  “  Mr.  S.  cannot  conceive  upon 
what  you  based  your  public  charge  against  him  of  being  the  chief  cause  of  the 
suspension  of  our  meeting,  if  our  report  of  the  affair  contained  a  fair  statement  of 


43 


ports  from  other  quarters,  of  not  so  fair  a  character,  and  that  he  had  based 
his  charge  on  them.  When,  therefore,  I  wrote  my  note  to  Mr.  Goodell,  I 
fully  expected  that  you  would  answer  it  by  denying  that  such  a  bare  charge, 
without  the  attending  qualifications,  had  gone  Irom  your  Mission,  and  that 
this  would  be  one  step  towards  tracing  it  to  the  source  whence  it  did  come, 
which  I  conjectured  to  be  an  individual  not  connected  with  your  Mission. 
This  was  the  cause  of  my  writing.  I  had  not  the  remotest  thought  of  en¬ 
tering  into  controversy  with  you,  nor  did  I  anticipate  so  protracted  a  corres¬ 
pondence. 

6.  It  is  unnecessary  to  trace  the  matter  farther.  Dr.  Anderson  did  not 
judge  it  best  to  give  his  authority,  and  your  first  letter  forbids  me  to  assume 
that  you  are  responsible.  To  search  farther  would  only  be  for  my  private 
satisfaction,  and  this  might  cost  me  more  trouble  than  I  have  time  to  spare. 

7.  The  “plain  and  unequivocal”  answer  which  I' desired,  was  to  the 
question  whether  you  were  satisfied  that  /  had  no  intention  of  injuring  or 
opposing  you.,  in  reading  the  article  in  the  Herald  to  an  Armenian.  Upon 
this  point  I  had  your  plain  declaration  at  the  conference,  but  some  general 
expressions  in  your  first  letter  of  last  week  seemed  to  me  capable  of  an  in¬ 
terpretation  which  might  throw  a  doubt  upon  it,  and,  therefore,  I  asked  the 
question  again.  Your  last  letter  assures  me  that  there  is  no  design  of  “  im¬ 
pugning  my  motive,”  which  is  all  that  1  asked. 

8.  There  seems,  therefore,  no  occasion  for  pursuing  the  subject  farther. 
If  there  were,  I  would  not  hesitate  to  ask  for  a  conference,  as  the  best  mode 
of  making  ourselves  fully  understood. 

9.  Let  me,  then,  in  conclusion,  say,  that  1  sincerely  believe  your  great  object 
to  be  the  salvation  of  souls.  This  also  is  my  aim  and  my  highest  ambition. 
Our  end,  then,  is  one,  and  if  we  differ,  it  is  in  the  means  and  modes  of  at¬ 
taining  it.  What  I  do,  I  do  for  this  end,  and  I  would  not  take  a  step  or 
adopt  a  measure  which  I  did  not  think  adapted  to  promote  it.  We  may  dif¬ 
fer  in  judgment  as  to  our  measures,  but  I  hope  it  will  ever  be  with  Christian 
charity  for  each  other,  and  with  the  sincere  conviction  that  each  is  laboring 
for  the'great  end  in  the  way  that  seems  to  him  conscientiously  best.  When 
we  speak  of  each  other,  may  it  be  with  fair  allowance  for  each  other’s  ends 
and  aims.  I  regret,  I  grieve,  that  we  do  not  in  all  things  see  eye  to  eye, 
even  on  earth.  I  wish  that  we  might;  I  pray  that  we  may.  But  if  not,  I 
humbly  hope,  that  we  may  all,  in  God’s  good  lime  and  by  His  unmerited 
mercy,  reach  that  blessed  world  where  we  shall  be  one,  under  Christ  our 
Head,  who  shall  be  all  in  all. 

Believe  me,  my  dear  sir. 

Yours  very  sincerely, 

(Signed)  HORATIO  SOUTHGATE. 

his  declaration  of  innocent  intention  and  of  his  effort  to  repair  injury.  The  fact 
is,  that  his  subsequent  conduct  did  not  increase  our  confidence  in  the  honesty  of 
his  desire  to  counteract  the  evil  he  had  done  ”  Ah,  this  fatal  suspicion,  founded 
on  native  report,  ruined  every  thing,  and  has  occasioned  us  this  long  controversy. 
But  it  is  done.  I  return  to  it  no  more — H.  S.] 


■  ^''W''*-.,?*.. •■  ’’‘' ' ' ' '. .' . .-  ‘  •  •  ■■ ' 


.■»-  ■,> 


iv  ^  j(il^  ii  ^^,i./|eji.  J<,U  »-«aii  t/ijV  i  4  *v^' 

.  .  ♦!}«-<  7ik4iM^*t  AKwVi  .i.ki  6;  ,^#  ,,? >»4;  4  , 


r  ^  •T’-ntr  »»»  '*f‘**^  '>:rr  --*tr,  f i  iyP'n!T-SB/» 

'  ^' '  -  '  -  ’  '^  •  -■  ■  ■  ••;;■  /(-,  Mt*'-  1  > 

^  ‘  '  V  '* '!»»/' "•  v^*  ‘.M'S  ••  ‘  'I'’  -  ■ 


it 


^  '  *  -^  f  ^7*  /'•  •  %  .  '  k^  •-  .  I  •  ‘  . 


• 


IW 


'"r#^r’ 


.  » p  \ 


»  \\  .-■  '7  *•’ 


■W: 


t  “ 

^  [H'  '  "f"'’- ^ V'-,-'"  -  ■'«  •  r  .  ,’  f-^,p 

J  ■  *  *’  -’'  ■"''A  •  ?  V'-S'  ■  "  *'’ 

.•^''.^i*r‘»-  >*’'  ■■  '■■  ■  '>6^.:‘'‘*'  ■"■  '■  -V  •  ■  ■•••  •  '"  '"V 

<t  .  .■-?'■  :,  V  '■  ^  — 17^7';  ».  ...  ;  '•  ' 

,'•  ..  >.-.,^*1  ,••’  ,  ^  ’•■'  *;  ^  ^•<‘'  »,  ■  i' 

'■''  •'  '’*!'’*■  ■^  ■'  ■*  • '  •  .••'^•'  ,,  .1  •  -•►  ■ 


( 


"SP 

1^'-  .,:-* 


.JL 


i,,t 


k 

\ 


m  n 


V* 


..  ■■•■  V  4  -i  '-  /•  r  f  >7fl 


.•i. . 


.  ■  -  »v  jT’  y^ 


*  ">•  r  '  •  V  "  f  '  »--vt'^ 

‘  I^.X/ Y4)y|^  ,^v.if*,  ' 


U.  APPLh.  I  UN  UU.  HAVL  LA  1  EL  I 

THE  SACRED  ORDER  AND  OFFICES  OF  ]  PISCOPACY 

ASSERTED  AND  MAINTAINED; 

TO  WHICH  IS  ADDED, 

CLERUS  DOMINI, 

A  DISCOURSE  ON  THE  OFFICE  MINISTERIAL. 

BY  THE  RIGHT  REV.  JEREMY  TAYLOR,  D.  D. 

One  elegant  volume,  16mo. — 362  pages.  Price  $1. 


A 


ft 


Contents  of  the  Sacred  Order  and  Offices  of  Episcopacy, 
fiy  Divine  Institution,  Apostolical  Tradition,  and  Catholic  practice,  together  with  their  Titles  oi 
Honour,  Secular  Employment,  Manner  of  Election,  Delegation  of  their  Power,  and  other  appendant 
questions,  asserted  against  the  Aerians  and  Acephali,  new  and  old. 

Section  I.  Christ  did  institute  a  Government  in  his  Church. — II.  This  Government  was  first 
committed  to  the  Apostles  hy  Christ. — HI.  With  a  Power  of  joining  others,  and  appointing  Successors 
inthe  Apostolate. — IV.  The  Succession  into  the  ordinary  Office  of  Apostolate  is  made  by  Bishops. — 
V.  And  Office. — VI.  AVhich  Christ  himself  hath  made  distinct  from  Presbyters. — VH.  Giving  to  Apos¬ 
tles  a  Power  to  do  some  Office  perpetually  necessary,  which  to  others  he  gave  not. — VIII.  And 
Confirmation. — IX.  And  Superiority  of  Jurisdiction. — X.  So  that  Bishops  are  Successors  in  the 
Office  of  Apostleship,  according  to  the  general  Tenentof  Antiquity. — XI.  And  particularly  of  St 
Peter. — XII.  And  the  Institution  of  Episcopacy,  as  well  as  the  Apostolate,  expressed  to  be  Divine, 
hy  primitive  Authority. — XHI.  In  pursuance  of  the  Divine  Institution,  the  Apostles  did  ordain 
Bishops  in  several  Churches — XIV.  St.  Timothy  at  Ephesus. — XV.  St.  Titus  at  Crete. — XVI. 
St.  Mark  at  Alexandria. — XVII.  St.  Linus  and  St.  Clement  at  Rome. — XVIH.  St.  Polycarp  at 
Smyrna,  and  divers  others. — XIX.  So  that  Episcopacy  is  at  least  an  Apostolical  Ordinance,  of  the 
same  authority  with  many  other  Points  generally  believed. — XX.  And  was  an  Office  of  Power 
and  great  authority. — XXI.  Not  lessened  bv  the  Assistance  and  Counsel  of  Presbyters. — XXH. 
And  all  this  hath  been  the  Faith  and  Practice  of  Christendom. — XXHI.  Who  first  distinguished 
Names,  used  before  in  common. — XXIV.  Appropriating  the  word  “  Episcopus”  or  Bishop  to  the 
Supreme  Church  officer. — XXV.  Calling  the  Bishop,  and  him  only,  the  Pastor  of  the  Church. — 
XXVI.  And  Doctor.— XXVII.  And  Pontifex. — XXVHI.  And  these  were  a  distinct  Order  from 
the  rest. — XXIX.  J’o  which  the  Prcsbyterate  was  but  a  Degree. — XXX.  There  being  a  peculiar 
Manner  of  Ordination  to  a  Bishopric. — XXXI.  To  which  Presbyters  never  did  assist  by  imposing 
hands. — XXXH.  For  Bishops  had  a  Power  distinct  and  superior  to  that  of  Presbyters.  As  of  Or¬ 
dination. — XXXIII.  And  Confirmation. — XXXIV.  And  Jurisdiction.  Which  they  expressed  rn 
Attributes  of  Authority  and  great  Power. — XXXV.  Requiring  universal  Obedience  to  be  given  to 
Bishops  by  Clergy  aud  Laity. — XXXVI.  Appointing  them  to  be  Judges  of  the  Clergy,  and  Spirit¬ 
ual  Causes  of  the  Laity. — XXXVH.  Forbidding  Presbyters  to  officiate  without  Episcopal  License. 
— XXXVIH.  Reserving  Church-Goods  to  Episcopal  Dispensation. — XXXIX.  Forbidding  Presby¬ 
ters  to  leave  their  own  Diocess,  or  to  travel,  without  Leave  of  the  Bishop. — XL.  And  the  Bishop 
had  Power  to  prefer  which  of  his  Clerks  he  pleased. — XLI.  Bishops  only  did  vote  in  Councils, 
and  neither  Presbyters  nor  People. — XLII.  And  the  Bishop  had  a  Propriety  in  the  Persons  of  his 
Clerks. — XLHI.  Their  Jurisdiction  was  over  many  Congregations  or  Parishes. — XLIV.  And  was 
aided  by  Presbyters,  but  not  impaired. — XLV.  So  that  the  Government  of  the  Church  by 
Bishops  was  believed  necessary. — XLVI.  For  they  are  Schismatics  that  separate  from  their  Bishop. — 
XLVII.  And  Heretics. — XLVIIT.  AndBishops  were  always,  in  the  Church,  Men  of  great  Honour. — 
XLIX.  And  trusted  with  Affairs  of  Secular  Interest. — L.  And  therefore  were  enforced  to  delegate 
the  Power  and  put  others  in  substitution. — LI.  But  they  were  ever  Clergymen,  for  there  never  were 
any  Lay-Elders  in  any  Church-office  heard  of  in  ^he  Church. 

I  CLERUS  DOMINI : 

Or,  a  Discourse  of  the  Divine  Institution,  Necessity,  Sacredness,  and  Separation,  of  the  Office  Minis 
terial ;  together  with  the  Nature  and  Manner  of  its  Power  and  Operation  :  written  by  the  special 
command  of  King  Charles  I. 

Section  I.  Ministers  of  Religion  have,  in  all  Ages,  been  distinguished  by  peculiar  Honours. — II. 
The  Ministers  of  Christ  receive  the  Power  of  remitting  or  retaining  Sins. — III.  The  Ministers  of 
Christ  are  commissioned  to  preach  the  Gospel. — IV.  The  Ministers  of  Christ  are  commissioned  to 
baptize. — V.  The  Ministers  of  Christ  stand  between  God  and  the  People,  in  administering  the  Eu¬ 
charist. — VI.  The  Ministers  of  Christ  derive  their  power  from  God. — VH.  The  Ministry  of  the 
Gospel  sanctifies  the  Person  of  the  Minister. — VHI.  No  Man,  in  these  days  of  Ordinary  Ministry, 
must  look  for,  or  pretend  to,  an  Extraordinary  Calling. 

The  reprint  in  a  portable  form  of  this  eminent  divine’s  masterly  defence  of  Episcopacy  cannot 
fail  of  being  welcomed  by  every  Churchman. 

“With  the  imagination  of  a  poet,  and  the  fervor  of  an  apostle,  Jeremy  Taylor  cannot  be  republished  in  any  shape  that  he 
will  not  have  leaders.  More  especially,  just  now  will  this  treatise  of  his  be  read,  when,  by  feebler  hands  and  far  less  well 
furnished  minds,  attempts  are  making  to  depreciate  that  sacred  order  and  those  sacred  offices  which  are  here  with  triumphant 
eloquence  maintained. 

“The  publishers  have  presented  this  jewel  in  a  fitting  casket.” — JV.  Y.  American.  Feb.  17,  1841 

Receirtly  Published  uniform  with  the  above. 


THE  GOLD  &N  GROVE: 

A  choice  Manual,  containing  what  is  to  be  believed,  practiced  and  desired,  or  prayed  for  ;  the  prayers 
being  fitted  for  the  several  days  of  the  week.  To  which  is  added,  a  Guide  for  the  Penitent,  or  a 
Model  drawn  up  for  the  help  of  devout  souls  wounded  with  sin.  Also,  Festival  Hymns,  &c  By 

- - . — ^  1.  T.  T.-  1  T - ^  ..,1  la, — 


xj.  j^iypicion  fjo.  Have  recently  published 

THE  CHBiSTIA^  INSTRUCTED 

IN  THE  WAYS  OF  THE  GOSPEL  AND  THE  CHURCH : 

A  SERIES  OF  DISCOURSES  DELIVERED  AT  ST.  JAMES’S  CHURCH,  GOSHEN,  NEW  YORK 
.  By  the  Rev.  J.  A.  SPENCER,  A.  M.  late  Rector. 

One  elegant  volume^  16mo.  25. 

This  is  the  first  volume  of  Sermons  by  an  American  Divine  which  has  appeared  for  some  years. 
Their  style  is  characterized  by  clearness,  directness,  and  force — and  they  combine,  in  a  happy  de¬ 
gree,  solid  good  sense  and  animation.  The  great  truths  of  the  gospel  are  presented  in  a  familiar  and 
plain  manner,  as  the  Church  Catholic  has  always  held  them,  and  as  they  are  held  by  the  reformed 
branches  in  England  and  America. 

The  Introduction  contains  a  brief  notice  of  what  the  Church  is,  how  she  is  to  be  distinguished 
from  the  various  surrounding  sects,  &c.  ;  of  the  great  value  and  advantages  of  the  Liturgy,  and  also 
a  succinct  account  of  various  Festivals  and  Fasts,  and  Holy  Seasons  ;  and  to  the  Sermons  are  ap¬ 
pended  notes  from  the  writings  of  Hooher,  Barrow,  Taylor,  Pearson,  Chillingworth,  Leslie,  Hors¬ 
ley,  Hobart,  and  other  standard  divines.  Illustrating  and  enforcing  the  doctrines  contained  in  them. 
The  book  is  well  adapted  to  the  present  distracted  state  of  the  public  mind,  to  lead  the  honest 
inquirer  to  a  full  knowledge  of  the  truth  as  it  is  in  Jesus,  and  to  give  a  correct  view  of  the  position 
occupied  by  the  Church. 

The  following  is  the  copy  of  a  letter  of  recommendation,  by  the  Right  Rev.  Bishop  Onderdonk, 
of  the  Diocese  of  New  York  : — 

“  Having  great  confidence  in  the  qualifications  of  the  Rev.  Jesse  A.  Spencer  for  pastoral  instruction  in  the  Church  of  God, 
from  a  personal  acquaintance  with  him  as  an  alumnus  of  the  General  Theological  Seminary  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal 
Church,  and  as  a  Deacon  and  Presbyter  of  my  Diocese,  it  gives  me  pleasure  to  learn,  that  in  his  present  physical  inability  to 
discharge  the  active  duties  of  the  ministry,  he  purposes  publishing  a  select  number  of  his  sermons.  Nothing  doubting  that 
they  Avill  be  found  instructive  and  edifying  to  those  who  sincerely  desire  to  grow  in  the  knowledge  and  practice  of  the  gospel, 
recommend  them  to  the  patronage  of  the  Diocese  ;  and  this  the  more  earnestly,  as  their  publication  may  be  hoped  to  be  a 
source  of  temporal  comfort  and  support  to  a  very  worthy  servant  of  the  altar,  afflicted,  at  an  early  period  of  his  ministry,  with 
loss  of  bodily  power  to  be  devoted  to  its  functions.” 

OATHOLIG  CHURCH  IN  ENGLAND  AND  AMERICA; 

THREE  LECTURES. 

1.  The  Church  in  England  and  America  Apostolic  and  Catholic. 

2.  The  Causes  of  the  English  Reformation. 

3.  Its  Character  and  Results. 

BY  JOHN  D.  OGILBY,  D.  D. 

(St.  Mark’s  Church,  Bowery,) — Professor  of  Ecclesiastical  History  in  the  General  Theological 

Seminary  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church. 

“  I  believe  One  Catholic  and  Apostolic  Church.” — JVicene  Creed. 

One  elegant  Volume,  16mo.  75  cents 

Author’s  Preface. — The  following  Lectures  were  prepared  for  delivery  to  a  popular  audience 
in  a  Course  of  Lectures  upon  the  distinctive  principles  of  the  Church.  It  was  incumbent  upon  the 
writer,  therefore,  not  to  presume  upon  more  information  on  the  part  of  his  hearers,  than  generally 
obtains  among  well-informed  persons;  while  at  the  same  time  his  narrow  limits  forbade  his  entering 
into  detail,  whether  in  narrative  or  argument.  In  preparing  this  little  volume  for  the  Press,  the 
same  reference  has  still  been  had  to  the  wants  of  the  general  reader;  the  references  in  the  notes  have, 
therefore,  been  made  to  the  most  accessible,  rather  than  the  original  authorities. 

The  Lectures  were  written,  and  are  now  printed,  without  any  polemical  view.  A  general  agree¬ 
ment  in  position  and  principle  between  the  hearer  and  speaker  was  originally  presupposed,  as  the 
Lectures  were  delivered  in  Episcopal  Churches.  A  similar  agreement  between  the  reader  and 
writer  is  still  presumed.  Many  points  are  therefore  left  open  to  the  attack  of  adversaries,  which 
might  have  been  guarded,  had  the  author  being  writing  a  polemical  treatise. 

The  running  title,  “  The  Catholic  Church  in  England  and  America,”  may  give  some  occasion 
to  fear,  and  others  opportunity  to  assert,  that  the  Author  is  disposed  to  abandon  the  position  which 
the  English  Church  and  our  own  have  been  obliged  to  assume  and  maintain,  of  express  opposition 
to  the  errors  and  pretensions  of  the  Papal  Communion.  It  is  apprehended  that  none  will  cherish 
such  fear,  or  venture  upon  such  assertion,  who  will  candidly  read  the  Lectures.  Why,  then,  it  may 
be  asked,  use  a  title  which  may  give  a  handle  to  the  fault-finder.^  Because  the  avowed  object  of 
the  Lectures  is  to  vindicate  the  claim  of  the  Church  in  England  and  our  own,  to  those  characters  of 
Catholicity  and  Apostolicity,  which  the  Creeds  ascribe  to  the  One  Church  of  Christ;  and  which 
must  therefore  pertain  to  every  particular  Church  in  union  with  that  one  Body. 

Indeed,  no  man  can  deny  that  our  Church  is  both  “Protestant”  and  “Episcopal;”  whatever 
may  be  alleged,  truly  or  falsely,  against  individual  Churchmen.  The  fact  is  manifest  to  the  eyes  o'* 
all  men;  and  the  most  competent  witnesses  attest  it;  Rome  allows  that  we  are  “  Protestant,”  and 
sectarians  that  we  are  “Episcopal;”  nay,  each  in  turn  casts  these  attributes  in  our  teeth  as  a 
reproach.  But  neither  Romanist  nor  sectarian  recognizes  our  Apostolicity  and  Catholicity.  Henci 
the  necessity  of  insisting  upon  and  vindicating  our  claim.  For,  if  we  cannot  maintain  it,  neither  our 
Protestantism  nor  our  Episcopalianism  will  the  least  avail  us;  since,  in  that  case,  the  definition 
of  our  own  creeds  excludes  us  from  the  fellowship  of  Christ.  Most  important  is  it,  then,  that  we 
should  both  assert  and  defend,  especially  against  Rome,  the  true  character  and  lawful  inheritance 
of  our  Spiritual  Mother;  lest,  through  ignorance  of  her  claim  upon  their  love  and  allegiance,  some 
of  her  ov/n  children  be  tempted  to  stray  from  her  fold  ;  and  lest  in  the  searcL  beginning  to  be  made 
by  the  wanderers  in  sectarian  bye-roads  for  the  “  old  paths,”  many  mistake  the  name  of  Catholic 
Apostolic  for  the  substance^  and  enter  the  wrong  door  of  Christ’s  temple,  through  our  omission 
to  inscribe  the  titles  Catholic  and  AootV'jw”  over  the  nortnls  of  Hi«  Hnlv  Son/»tnnrw 


..  t* ^  :*  I  :  'f  ./Si- *■ •  r-''-'  s’’  ^ 

,.|.  a  ..  ..*^..ir-r;HB»:-’-V  ^  Y  •;  ,,’■  -'•  »  Wfili 

♦  j*' ''iijv'* ,.  ( .’■  ♦  ifftr: — ■  V  ».; :  ;  *  *  ■  ■  •*  ■  04 

U  ';4**  „r  :  'ju  !j*f  »Jf»->v -TT^  IR  •*v4w^  "  .  ^  ./' .  '^  *'• 

7  "™"  *  ,,  "^  •  'v  "•  p  .  .-*  .  ^  1^  -iT  a 

‘.r?;f  .4^/  - -  * 


f.  ,1  i/'/**i*  V. 

‘  -K  t*  *F  '.v,  -  Ar' 


K  ..'  1 


.  f*'  i  -'  V,  ■■  LjFj 

•  rE-r"  .Ff?  ■  -' 


,'f*r  _  .,  -« 

i'  t.k-t- •  *-  •  "i- r? .  '■  % 

^«r*^t.;-r  v:  '  '* 


I'  ' 

i :  !•  V  ,  *.  '- ■  ' 

E-  *  4  .'  •  *^ 

■n^  ^  I*  i.  -  ;  ; «  ..  *  j  •  _  'k  :  ■ » '  'V;J*ir  *  ^  -. 

V’ *'  .>• 


:»* 

4)' 


i ! • 'i-  -I 
fi\'.:  1,,.^ 


tl 


* 


Zv  r  I" 


..  t 

• }'  V '*•  ■•  ■' 

^rr  -=^:  :Cafe«i5?t' 


jf-.  .  I  . 
i  r'**  ■  ^ 


Il  r1> 

,.  I  *,>y  i  .  -V  J 

I  I  ‘5t.^  -  M  11  .-i»— * 


.  •'  - 

' 

r 

V  5 

11 

'■  V  ’ 

•  \. 

‘J- 

^  1 

ijPil  • 

^  * 

■"'•  1 

'm 

.V 

\  i^  ‘ 

’  "  k. 

i- 

:^i  - 


‘|r<-»v^jr*  vtf'  >,K  <  i,  ,'*  !•  •  ^ 

'  f.  ■  ^  -  ' 

•Ji  ';» 't  •  .xvl.  ;■ 


\i 

.  I  >  ' 


;l 


>  ^  Ii *  «  1 

‘  w  ^  f  -r'  ••  '  .‘i 

1  *  •>'>.“  "■'  ' 

V  ^  ^L.ai  %  >v  .  k  '  ' 

'I' 


•<1 

•-n 


L  ?^i5l  -  ■■>^;'  [  ■  ■  *-1^'  'iliTi  l^'.C  ^ 

;«'^';i«r^>*H-M  ‘s-Vj  J'  i  'r 

-  •'.*^l^- .--i*;-  '4  ’*4  ■  ■■■f'i  "  *  '^*''' 

'  -I.  ii.  •  I V  >  •  n  4  ^  i  S'V  .  -sii 

I’  fAi . •  ’^■^.■']' '  I--  ■ 

i^ljJ  r*  ^  1  ’b  •■  V 


& 


-  *  'V 


r' 

r  V  ^  ‘  .;;,'JV 

^  Ai,  ’*  u* - 

4  4*rr-f¥; -I  *•■•'/•:  A 

fkL4^^ .  «>»■  s'  ; ..  ’ 


->  *»X*i 


iTj”  ' 

■•^■?'  ■  *"  "  ♦ ‘■“*“^  *  '»• 


•;  ,  5  ;  'fe  ■'•■»  P  ■•#  .  *rpij 

‘  .'f  "  ■  .  ♦  °  flKl ‘  .  t*.  '-f  .JN|[-S-  '  '  '%:•■ 


r$ 

I 

t 


■.'^/->^  vC*  «’  %»  ’  'D 


-k.,  V 


i  r 


INTERUBRARY  LOAN  REQUEST 

According  to  the  A.L.A.  Interlibrary  Loan  Code 


- jj.  Appimn  15'  uw.  mm  i 

MnTCTQ  rtKt  TUCT  irDIQr>r^DAI  D<^l  ITV 


u.  jijjpietun  ty  ^u.  nuvt  /  vLKniiy  puuiisntu, 

NOTES  ON  THE  EPISOOPAL  POLITY 

OF  THE  HOLY  CATHOLIC  CHURCH; 

WITH  SOME  ACCOUNT  OF  THE  DEVELOPMENTS  OF  MODERN  RELIGIOUS  SYSTEMS, 

BY  THOMAS  WILLIAM  MARSHALL,  B.  A* 

OF  THE  DIOCESE  OF  SALISBURT. 

EDITED  BY  JONATHAN  M.  WAINWRIGHT,  D.  D. 

One  elegantly  printed  volume.  12mo.  Price  25. 

CONTENTS. — Chapter  1.  Introduction.  Chapter  II.  Scripture  Evidence — Sec.  1.  Case  of  St.  James — 2.  Case  of  St 
Timothy — 3.  Case  of  St.  Titus — 4.  Case  of  tlie  Asian  Angels— 5.  Notice  of  Objections.  Chapter  III.  Evidence  of  Antiquity 
— Sec.  1.  Nature  of  this  Evidence — 2.  St.  Clement  of  Rome — 3.  St.  Ignatius  of  Antioch — 4.  St.  Justin  Martyr — 5.  Pope  Piul 
1. — 6.  Hegesippus — 7.  Polycrates — 8.  St.  Irenaeus — 9.  St.  Clement  of  Alexandria — 10.  Tertullian — 11.  The  Apostolical  Can¬ 
ons  ;  Arians,  Donatists,  Manichaeans,  &,c.  &.c. — 12.  St.  Cyprian — 13.  St.  Jerome — 14.  St.  Augustine — 15.  St.  Ambrose,  St. 
Basil,  St.  Chrysostom,  St.  Athanasius — 16.  Summary.  Chapter  IV.  Admissions  of  Adversaries — Sec.  1.  On  the  Genera 
Q.ue8tion — 2.  Calvin,  J.  Sturmius — 8.  Beza,  Farel,  Rivet,  N.  Vedelius,  P.  Viret,  Zuirigle — 4.  Melancthon,  Luther,  Confess 
Augustan — 5.  Bucer,  Gualter,  Peter  Martyr,  Jerome  Zanchy,  Seckendorff — 6.  Dr.  Peter  Du  Moulin — 7.  H.  Grotius,  J.  Casaul>o- 
— 8.  Blondel,  Salmasius — 9.  Bochart,  Amyraut,  Drelincourt,  Langlet,  Daille,  Turretin,  University  of  Geneva ;  Baxter,  Calamy. 
Stephen  Marshal,  Cartwright,  Dr.  Cornelius  Burges,  Henderson,  Lord  Pembroke,  John  Hales,  Sir  Edward  Dcering — 1^ 
Summary.  Chapter  V.  Development  of  Modern  Systems. — Sec.  1.  Nature  of  this  Argument— 2.  Development  in  Germany — 

3.  Switzerland— 4.  France— 5.  England,  Channel  Islands — 6.  Scotland — 7.  Ireland — 8.  Holland,  Belgium,  Hungary,  the  Vau- 
dois — 9.  Sweden  and  Denmark — 10.  Prussia — 11.  Russia — 12.  United  States  of  America — 13.  General  Summary. 

ADVERTISEMENT. — The  appearance  of  another  work,  however  insignificant,  upon  a  subject 
so  fully  exhausted  as  the  Government  of  the  Church,  may  seem  to  require  some  explanation.  The 
learned  and  distinguished  persons,  who,  in  past  times,  have  gone  over  this  ground,  were  not  accus¬ 
tomed,  as  is  w'ell  known,  to  leave  much  behind  them  for  gleaners.  Some  variety  of  arrangement, 
or  a  different  selection  of  evidence  from  the  same  originals  which  they  so  diligently  explored, —  this  is 
the  sum  of  what  can  now  be  done  by  those  who  have  come  after  them.  Had  it  been  intended, 
therefore,  merely  to  repeat  what  they  have  already  so  well  said,  the  present  attempt  would  have 
savored  of  superfluity,  and  might  have  deserved  only  censure. 

There  is,  however,  one  argument,  from  the  use  of  which  the  earlier  writers  on  Church-polity 
were  either  wholly  precluded,  or  which  they  could  employ  only  at  a  disadvantage,  but  which,  ic 
consequence  of  certain  recent  events  to  be  noticed  in  these  page.s,  becomes,  in  the  hands  of  their 
successors,  a  weapon  of  untried  but  admirable  efficacy.  The  Anglican  divines  of  the  1 6th  and  17 th 
centuries  might  refer — as  they  did — in  enforcing  allegiance  to  the  Successors  of  the  Apostles,  to  the 
history  of  earlier  times,  and  point  to  the  uniform  progress  from  schism  to  heresy  which  that  history 
records.  So  far  they  occupied  the  same  position  with  ourselves.  But  when  they  went  on  to  pre¬ 
dict  a  like  declension  for  the  principles  against  which  their  own  writings  were  directed,  and  to  warn 
men,  from  the  analogies  of  the  past,  that  innovation  in  discipline  would  infallibly  lead  to  corn’.plion 
in  doctrine, — it  is  obvious  that  their  adversaries  w'ould  be  no  way  embarrassed  in  dealing  with  a 
prophecy  whose  force  depended  almost  entirely  upon  its  fulfilment.  That  fulfilment,  once  so  little 
dreaded,  it  has  been  reserved  to  us  to  witness  ;  and  the  development  of  the  modern  religious  sys¬ 
tems,  though  even  now  imperfect,  is  at  length  so  far  complete  as  to  enable  us  to  determine  with 
accuracy  their  true  character. 

The  present  condition  of  the  various  Protestant  communities  of  Christendom,  of  which  the 
original  organization  was  a  human  device,  and  therefore  defective, — is  perhaps  the  most  extraordi¬ 
nary  and  appalling  subject  of  contemplation  to  the  thoughtful  mind,  which  our  own  or  any  other 
age  of  the  Church  supplies.  To  call  attention  to  this  actual  condition  is  the  main  object  with  which 
these  pages  have  been  written  ;  and  as  this  portion  of  their  contents  i.s,  from  the  nature  of  the  case, 
almost  entirely  novel,  it  may  perhaps  be  relied  upon  as  an  adequate  apology  for  their  appearance. 

The  course  of  argument  pursued,  which  it  may  be  convenient  to  state  here,  is  as  follows  : — 

I.  The  a  priori  objection  to  the  truth  of  the  Catholic  System  of  Polity  founded  on  the  indetei- 
minateness  of  the  Sacred  Records,  and  the  antecedent  probabilities  in  its  favor  derived  from  Pro¬ 
phecy  and  prescription,  are  briefly  discussed. 

II.  The  positive  evidence  of  Holy  Scripture  in  recognition  of  the  Episcopate  isnext  adduced  ;and 

III.  The  testimony  of  Antiquity — as  well  that  which  has  been-supplied  by  the  enemies  as  by 
the  servants  of  the  Church — including  the  first  four  ages  of  Christianity,  is  then  cited. 

IV.  The  adversary  is  next  referred  to  the  witness  of  his  own  masters  and  teachers,  who,  even  in 
the  first  setting  up  of  their  new  schemes,  acknowledged  openly  the  divine  origin  of  that  primitive 
government  which  they  loudly  declared  their  reluctance  to  subvert,  and  for  the  restoration  of  which 
they  professed,  in  the  most  animated  terms,  their  sincere  and  unfeigned  desire.  The  catalogue  of 
witnesses  of  this  class  might  have  been  considerably  enlarged  ;  but  it  will  be  found  to  be  sufficiently 
ample.  The  remarkable  admissions  of  Knox  and  his  confederates,  together  with  many  others,  have 
been,  for  the  sake  of  brevity,  wholly  omitted  ; — though  it  has  been  justly  said,  that  “  the  views 
entertained  by  the  Scottish  reformer  on  the  subject  of  Episcopal  superintendence — views  which  he 
frequently  and  emphatically  avow'ed — might  be  studied  with  advantage  in  modern  times.”  But  it 
was  necessary  to  prescribe  a  limit  in  adducing  confessions  which  are  themselves  almost  unlimited. 

V.  The  final  argument  is  that  which  is  supplied  by  the  actual  history  of  those  religious  bodies 
which  have  \>oon  severed  from  the  Apostolical  Succession,  and  which  were  originally  founded  either 
upon  the  deliberate  rejection  of  the  divine  office  of  the  Episcopate,  or  the  supposed  sufficiency  of 
other  modes  of  ecclesiastical  discipline  for  preserving  in  its  integrity  “  the  faith  once  delivered  to  the 
Saints.” 

And  although  hitherto  many  have  been  able  tilT  resist  the  combined  testimony  of  Prophecy, 
Scripture,  and  Antiquity,  and  even  to  justify  their  adherence  to  the  modern  systems  in  spite  of  the 
explicit  confessions  of  the  very  men  by  whom  they  were  first  framed  ;  we  may  perhaps  hope,  that 
the  present  aspect  of  those  systems,  and  their  uniform  development — without  so  much  as  a  single 
exception — into  nurseries  of  heresy  and  unbelief,  may  constrain  some  few  at  least  to  reconsider 
ffieir hazardous  position,  and  to  relinquish,  while  yet  they  may,  the  unhappy  inventions, ^on^which^^ 


^0V  s  711 

.  PRE 


This  volume  c 

The  End  of 
Hour. — The  Bull' 
Prayer  of  Moses  j 
Lord. — The  Fum 
Nain. — The  Wid- 
by  God.— The  C 
Message  sent  to 
gins. — The  Rock. 
Stream  from  Hor 
the  Wilderness.—' 
— The  Complaint 
Gourd. — The  Ris 
The  Peace  of  Go- 
— The  Plague  in 
for  His  Church.- 
Sinner  a  Temple, 
of  God  to  the  Isra 

“  Bradley’s  Disc' 


DATE  DUE 


lY. 


■t  the  Eleventh 
lan  Life. — The 
'  the  Samaritan 
the  Widow  ol 
Sins  Blotted  out 
Sinner. — The 
he  Foolish  Vir- 

■  Flowing  of  the 
le  Christian  in 
Drought  Home, 
tory  of  Jonah’s 
ght  to  Pray. — 

■  East  to  Christ 

• 

ayer  of  Christ 
’he  Redeemed 
—The  Promis3 


s’s  British  Libra¬ 


rian. 


GAYLORD 


PRINTED  IN  U^.A. 


“  Very  able  and 
“  Bradley’s  style, 
almost  holds  convei 
Eclectic  Review. 

“We  earnestly  desire  that  every  pulpit  in  the  kingdom  may  ever  be  the  vehicle  of  discourses  as  judi¬ 
cious  and  practical,  as  Scriptural  and  devout,  as  these.” — Christian  Observer.  " 


;  quaint ;  and  he 
sacred  chair.” — 


OPINIONS  OF  THE  AMERICAN  PRESS. 

“  The  style  is  so  simple,  that  the  most  unlearned  can  understand  them  ;  the  matter  is  so  instructive 
that  the  best  informed  can  learn  something ;  the  spirit  so  fervent,  that  the  most  engaged  Christian  can 
be  animated  and  warned  by  their  perusal.” — Christian  Witness. 

“  They  are  rich  in  Scriptural  truth,  and  imbued  throughout  with  the  spirit  of  deep  and  earnest  piety 
Members  of  every  Evangelical  Communion  may  read  them  with  pleasure  and  profit.” — Alb.  Even.  Jour. 

“We  cordially  recommend  these  discourses  to  all  persons  who  are  anxious  to  possess  a  variety  o 
Sunday  reading,  equally  adapted  to  gratify  a  cultivated  taste,  a  devout  heart,  and  the  solicitude  for  the 
best  species  of  practical  instruction.” — Philad.  Enquirer. 

“  There  is  a  charming  simplicity  in  these  Sermons,  which  render  them  peculiarly  appropriate  for 
family  use,  as  well  as  for  all  persons  who  love  truth  in  its  clearness  and  direct  application.” — Com.  Adv. 

“  The  subjects  are  among  the  most  interesting  that  could  be  chosen,  and  they  are  handled  with  a 
mastery,  both  of  method  and  style,  and  expressed  with  fervor  and  unction,  which  appeals  at  once  to  the 
hearts  as  well  as  to  the  common  sense  of  mankind.” — U.  S.  Gazette. 


The  above  Volume  may  also  be  had  bound  with  “  PRACTICAL 
for  every  Sunday  and  principal  Holiday  in  the  Year  j  by  the  same  Author. 

3 


SERMONS” 
Price  $2  50. 


